How? Why?

I was asking myself, “How could anyone vote against the Violence Against Women Act,” and that led to, how could anyone vote against unemployment insurance, food stamps, living wages, health care, Social Security, Aid for disasters, and etc., etc . I suddenly realized that was the wrong question, for how someone votes against such things is basically simple, you just vote a simple three letter word, either aye or nay, or you fill out a secret ballot that accomplishes the same thing. It’s very easy. You don’t even have to know anything about what you are voting for, nor do you have to associate it with the living people it may be going to either help or harm. Voting for your “principles” in the abstract, disassociated from actual persons, does not even require questions of conscience.

 The more important question is obviously why do people vote against such seemingly worthwhile measures? I confess I cannot answer this question, certainly not in most cases, as the explanations I hear rarely if ever make sense to me. In the case of the Violence against Women Act, for example, it would seem the only reason to vote against it apparently had to do with the fact that it focused on Immigrant and American Indian women. That only makes sense if you suppose that American Indian and Immigrant women are somehow less important than other women and that raping them is relatively unimportant. I can’t imagine those who voted against this Act would admit publicly to those reasons but what other reasons could they have? Perhaps because they thought it would cost money, an even more questionable and disgusting reason.

Why would anyone vote against aid for disaster victims, an unprecedented vote, given that such aid has always been given in the past? Some have suggested that prejudice against the Northeast may have something to do with it. Maybe that is true. But again, the arguments have to do with the cost. Of course the cost of aid for Katrina or most other such disasters has never really been raised, except after the fact. The same standard could have been applied in the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut cases, but it wasn’t. It seems that disaster aid to the Southern States has always been quickly forthcoming but this case involving the Northeast is somehow different, why I do not truly know, but my suspicious mind is at work on it.

 The arguments involving “costs” has raised the issue of human hypocrisy to what is probably unprecedented levels. You will have noticed that Republicans cling to the claim the national debt is the single greatest problem facing us and demand an end to further spending at every opportunity. They are so obsessed with this idea they may be willing to even damage the credit rating of the U.S. and even the world-wide economy, a rather strange idea that would, of course, make things far worse than they are. They constantly rail against President Obama and the Democrats for being “big spenders” and conveniently forget that most of our massive debt can be traced to their own party under the  leadership of Bush/Cheney. Their two unfunded “wars,” a massive give-away to the Pharmaceutical Industry, and massive tax breaks for the already wealthiest individuals and corporations brought about the debt in the first place. Now their new found faith in an austerity program, if allowed to succeed, will make it impossible to recover from their destructive behavior. This will please the Tea Party folk who seem to relish the destruction of government at all levels. You might recall Cheney’s claim that “Reagan proved the national debt didn’t matter” (or words to that effect). Have they ever apologized for being so wrong? Of course not, they want to enshrine Saint Ronnie (who began our disastrous fall) on Mt. Rushmore.

I confess I do not know why it is Republicans are against virtually everything that might make life easier and better for ordinary working people, unemployment insurance, health care, minimum wages, contraception, abortion, food stamps, violence against women, unions, whatever. This is a new breed of Republicans, they were not always like that. Indeed, they used to try to do the right thing by everyone (even though their ideas of the right thing might have been different at times). They used to be a genuine political party rather than a conglomeration of greedy bribe takers doing the bidding for those on the forefront of exploitation, short-term gains, middle class and environmental destruction. As they can no longer be trusted with the public interest we need to find ways to govern without them in so far as that might be possible. Perhaps after the next election in 2014 we might mercifully be rid of them.

 I have come to the conclusion that my subjective account of my motivation is largely mythical on almost all occasions. I don't know why I do things.

J. B. S. Haldane

Does Not Play Well with Others

As I recall, when I was a boy in elementary school, there was a statement that sometimes occurred on someone’s report card which you had to take home and show your parents. Along with your grades in various subjects there were brief reports on your conduct. “Does not play well with others” was sometimes reported for those students who for whatever reason were disruptive and caused trouble in school, those who just did not get along well with other children. If the parents (or the teachers) could not change the behavior of such troublemakers and their disruptive behavior continued over time they could be transferred to another classroom, or, even eventually become expelled from school. The cause of their behavior was not the issue, merely their behavior. Similarly, a student who did not even intend to be disruptive might be forced out for their “bad” behavior. When I was in the second grade (yes, I can still remember this) the girl that sat at a desk immediately across from me wet her pants on a daily basis. This was very disruptive and of course I’m sure the poor girl suffered much more than her classmates, but that didn’t matter. I don’t know what happened to her but I do know she did not last long in our second grade class. Although I do not know precisely how they worked, there obviously were ways to deal with such problem children. What a pity we have no way to deal with such problem persons in Congress or other positions of power and influence.

Of course we do have a way of sorts, but it is too slow and inefficient to help very much. In fact in some cases, because of gerrymandering, it is now virtually impossible to remove certain Congresspersons no matter how extreme (or apparently “crazy”) their behavior. Having to wait for the next election to remove someone from office can lead to closing the door after the damage has already been done. I do not wish to name specific individuals but there is no doubt that we have some Congresspersons who for whatever reason are so extreme in their views as to be broadly conceived as way “too far out,” or even perhaps insane. Of course nowadays it is difficult to know whether someone is being paid to act crazy on certain issues (guns or oil or climate or drugs or evolution, for example) or whether they might actually be crazy.

Unfortunately, it seems we have at the moment quite a number of those who do not play well with others.  For example, when 98% of the world’s scientists agree on global warming, probably the single most frightening thing for human life, and there are still those who refuse to believe it, you know you are dealing with the truly deranged, “crazies,” “weirdos,” “religious nut cases,” or perhaps those who are willing to say anything if the money is right. For those who insist on believing the earth is only 6000 years old and people lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs I doubt the money has much to do with it (but I wouldn’t completely rule it out in all cases). Those individuals who simply reject science entirely are truly out of touch and have no business in office and should be expelled forthwith.

This is not to suggest people should not, or cannot have different opinions on important matters. But they should at least have some acceptable evidence or cogent argument for their positions. “The bible says…,” “It’s God’s will…,”  “My mother told me…,” or simply “I believe…,” do not constitute reasonable arguments for nonsensical beliefs that might well have harmful effects on others or the earth.

There are also those who make pronouncements about things that simply have no basis in fact. “Birthers” would fall under this category. “There are 78 or 80 members of the communist party among the Democratic caucus” would also have to be seen as simply nonsense. The problem with this category of apparent lunatics is simply that you can suspect they are making these claims for purely political points, or perhaps just to draw attention to themselves, but you know at the same time they are really stupid even for those reasons. I’m sure there will always be those who do not play well with others. When it comes to government and matters of critical importance to us all there should be quicker and more efficient mechanisms for getting rid of them. Why must we listen to the babbling of idiots for years before there is even any chance to be rid of them? The fact that such people can live and thrive in our government for years before any action can be taken is, I think, a basic flaw in our system. Yes, I know, there is also impeachment, but how often have you ever seen anyone successfully impeached (and I assure you we have some who should have been impeached long ago).  

 Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.

Honore de Balzac  

What is "Natural?"

I realize this is a question so basically philosophical it could not possibly be settled (if settled at all) by a brief blog. But I am stimulated to consider it by the argument made by some that Gay marriages are “unnatural.” This is an argument that would seem to have some merit, depending upon what is meant by “natural.” If you assume that marriages are natural because they produce offspring, and Gay marriages do not, this position makes some sense. But many marriages do not produce offspring. Marriages between seniors, for example, do not result in offspring. Similarly, there are many couples who marry but have to desire to have children. There are also marriages between Gays and “Straits,” as well as marriages between Lesbians and Straits. Similarly, if you examine marriages around the world they do not necessarily involve the goal of having children, or even, necessarily, paternity. There are, for example, polyandrous marriages in which one woman has two or more husbands who take turns claiming paternity whether the particular husband is truly the progenitor or not. There are marriages in which a woman claims to be married to the ghost of her deceased husband and brings in a lover to actually father her child. Indeed, a woman can marry another woman to be considered the father of her child if the woman has enough cattle or whatever to marry. Among some American Indians there was a custom called the couvades in which a woman could marry as a husband or a man could marry as a wife. There is a long-standing claim that in at least one society (perhaps more than one) the role of sex in procreation is not even recognized, the fetus being given to a woman by an ancestral ghost or some kind of spirit.

Now you might argue that such strange customs do not constitute true marriages as we think of them. But as far as I know they all involve public ceremonies that recognize the legality of the relationships and also the parental rights and responsibilities that derive from them. You could, it seems to me, argue that “marriage” is itself somewhat unnatural. That is, no other mammalian species relies on anything like marriage to propagate their species. The human species could certainly, and often does, reproduce itself without the benefit of marriage. When you consider polygamy, serial monogamy, common law, and such, it seems pretty clear that while such unions may be “unusual” they are not necessarily unnatural.  So how does one distinguish the natural from the unnatural, and the unnatural from the unusual? I cannot say that I know, but I regard it as a most interesting question, and I would suggest that if someone does not know they should exercise caution before condemning things as unnatural.

What about left-handedness? Is this merely unusual or is it unnatural. Years ago some considered it so unnatural as to try to force the left handed to use their right hands, often resulting in undesirable consequences. What about someone like Phil Mickelson who is apparently “naturally” right handed but plays professional golf left handed, or the rare ambidextrous people who seem proficient with either hand?  They are, it is true, unusual, but are they also unnatural? It does not seem so to me. Similarly, when I look out my living room window I see a forest of various evergreen trees. They are all virtually perfectly straight, tall, and beautiful, except for one that has a strange and unattractive bend in it. Is that unnatural or merely unusual? How does one distinguish between the unusual and the unnatural?

If one person is unusually attractive and another unusually unattractive, does that make attractive more natural than unattractive? What about those unfortunates with physical defects, like harelips or club feet? If they exist in nature, as they do, how can they be considered unnatural? In order to make such judgments you have to have in mind some kind of standard, however abstract, of what a natural human is supposed to look like, a standard of “normality.” If one deviates sufficiently from this standard we say they are unnatural, or abnormal. But if they exist in nature in the same way “normals” do how can we say they are unnatural? You can say, of course, they do not represent God’s intentions, but how do we know what God’s intentions are? It was recently argued by one of our “leaders” that even when a child was conceived by an act of rape it must have been God’s intention.” Does that make sense? In some cultures those who are somewhat “insane,” or even epileptic, are regarded as especially gifted and can become shamans or perhaps seers, whereas in other cultures they can be seen as most undesirable. In some cultures speaking in tongues and falling into trances are regarded as perfectly normal, at least in some circumstances. While such individuals may be regarded as unusual they are not regarded as unnatural. Even human customs like headhunting and cannibalism have been seen as perfectly natural by some people but regarded as completely unnatural by others. I could go on but of course this seems perfectly obvious.

In any case, when you hear someone claim something or other is God’s will or a Natural right, bite the bullet, take a deep breath, pause for reflection, consider the source, look for the motive, and watch your wallet. Do we even have a right to be born: an American, African, Asian, wealthy, poor, healthy, sick, handicapped, brilliant, dull? I do not know, it is all part of the Great Mystery.

 In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.

Robert Frost 

The Depths of Despicable

Anyone who has followed or read this blog for any length of time knows that there is no love here for Republicans. I guess it is only fitting that my final blog of 2012 deals with their final descent into the depths of the despicable. When Mitch McConnell tried to introduce a change in the Social Security CPI at the last moment into the current ongoing negotiations it was clear Republicans have finally reached not only the depths of the despicable but also the depths of depravity. It is true they quickly backed down from this despicable attempt, but the fact that McConnell could even consider bringing it up in the current context of negotiations is indicative of their callous attitude towards the middle class and the poor. This change they wanted in the CPI would have meant thousands of dollars taken from those on Social Security who need those funds the most. Not only that, it would have taken money away from the widows of our now deceased military personnel! You cannot , I think, fall much lower than that. They would have us take money from those who need it the most in order to give more money to a relatively small number of people who already have so much money they could literally be buried under piles of it. This would be not only despicable but would give new and added meaning to the adjective “vile.”

What is with these people anyway? Didn’t they have parents? I would certainly hope their parents did not instill in them this contempt for the middle class and the poor. Perhaps they did but I doubt it. Republicans have not been this despicable before, they used to be actually a serious and relatively sensible bunch when it comes to governing and looking after the middle class and the poor. Even Richard Nixon had a plan to help the less fortunate although it never came to fruition. I think the Republican descent into depravity and the despicable began with our idiot President, Saint Ronnie, who apparently had the mind of a six-year-old. Saint Ronnie, oblivious to reality, tilted at the windmills of welfare queens, unions, and government in general, and managed to damage our politics in ways that still continue. Even so, it was not until the Clinton Presidency that the Republican Party began to change from a serious political party into a kind of political mafia determined to use any means to bring down Clinton. They have been going downhill ever since, employing literally any means to gain power, suppressing the vote, changing the rules, gerrymandering, lying, roviating, bribing, holding hostages, and employing every dirty trick they can to get illegally and immorally what they cannot achieve legitimately.

Contemporary Republicans seem to lack even a semblance of empathy, sympathy, or even basic understanding. They apparently think that changing the CPI is just a matter of abstract negotiation with no effect on human beings. Perhaps they just don’t think at all. How could anyone be so callous as to suggest taking money away from war widows, seniors who depend on Social Security, the handicapped? Such Republicans are not only not fit to govern, they are not fit even to be in human society. Indeed, they make a mockery of the very concept of society. I confess I cannot understand them. I find the idea that they would prefer to take money from those with the least to insure more money for those with the most totally incomprehensible, so far-fetched as to make me question their sanity, so absurd as to believe they can’t really be serious. But apparently it is true, they seem to be willing to go to any lengths, even risking the nation itself, to preserve more money for those who already have most of it. It defies reason, defies reality, defies even common sense. It is, in short, crazy. And yet, it is, and it continues, and it threatens our national well-being, and these Frankenstein type monsters just don’t seem to care. Where did they come from, these people? I cannot believe their parents sent them to Washington to take away our safety nets, to throw the middle class and the poor under the bus, to attempt to destroy the fabric of our culture. What can they possibly be thinking, assuming they think at all?

The great weakness of our system is there is no way of getting rid of these monsters at least until 2014, and as they have successfully stacked the deck in their favor perhaps not even then. So we muddle on hopelessly mired in utter nonsense with no end in sight. SO HAPPY NEW YEAR! Things probably can’t get much worse.

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

Mark Twain

Stupidity

I have not been able to blog for a long time, partly because of the holidays, but mostly because I have come to the conclusion that everything about American politics, government, and society has become so stupid it is hardly worth the effort to comment any longer. Of course I realize that I have done stupid things in the past, and continue to do stupid things now, but for the moment this is not about my personal stupidity. When commenting on American stupidity it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, I should try to define what I mean by stupid, so let us turn to the online dictionary:

a : slow of mind : obtuse

b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish

2

: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid stupid

from the sedative>

3

: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless stupid

decision>

4

a : lacking interest or point stupid

event>

b : vexatious, exasperating stupid

car won't start>

— stu·pid·ly adverb

— stu·pid·ness noun

I should say that virtually all of these meanings apply to our current sociopolitical scene in one way or another. Consider a somewhat simple case, the Iowa Supreme Court decision that a woman could be fired from her job by being overly attractive and hence a threat to the marriage of her boss (apparently the wife of the boss complained). Shades of consortium! It was the case that men used to be able to sue for loss of consortium if their wife for some reason could no longer engage in sex. Wives, however, were not allowed to sue for the loss. I’m sure that in some jurisdictions this no longer applies but I would not be at  all surprised if it still exists in some others. But the point here is, could a man be fired for being too attractive if a husband complained? You can be pretty sure this would never happen. Further, if this decision was taken as a precedent, virtually everyone would be at the mercy of their employer’s spouse, a truly stupid idea when carried to its more or less logical conclusion.

Another example of stupid, more important, is the case of Iran. It seems that most everyone these days insists that “we must do something about Iran.” Iran is not to be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb. This is stupidity raised to a very high level. First, there is no evidence Iran is very close to developing a nuclear bomb or the capacity to deliver it even if it had one. Second, there is absolutely no reason to believe that if Iran had such a bomb it would immediately set out to attack anyone with it. The Iranians are not crazy, they know that surrounded by others with already developed nuclear capabilities, plus the constant threat they endure from Israel and the U.S., their use of a bomb would result in their almost immediate destruction. Thus the constant drumbeat against Iran is just  plain stupid (unless, of course, there is some ulterior motive for it which might well be the case).

It would be pretty hard to find an idea more stupid that the latest NRA proposal to arm our teachers and/or provide armed guards for every school in the country. The idea that you might reduce gun violence by the addition of more guns is truly stupid on the face of it. Children are not only vulnerable in schools, but also on playgrounds, skating rinks, movies, and on and on, why should they not have armed guards everywhere? And of course the idea that a teacher armed with a gun would be able to defeat someone determined to attack a schoolroom is rather stupid to begin with, unless they, too, were heavily armed with an assault rifle, in which case the killings would most probably increase. The NRA wants us to become an armed camp with everyone packing some form of “heat,” thus completely militarizing our already over-militarized society and, of course, selling more guns for the gun manufacturers. Indeed, this idea might be considered the mother of all stupid ideas.

Finally, for the moment at least, the idea that you can have a government run by politicians who can be legally bribed to do the bidding of gun and other manufacturers, corporations and wealthy individuals, is intrinsically stupid. Our so-called “public servants” are no longer that, but are simply private individuals out for themselves and the interests that are bribing them. Public service is no longer a motive for governing, what is good for the public is no longer of interest to our so-called “leaders.” Our highly touted “democracy” is no longer  a democracy at all, it has little or nothing to do with the will of the people and they no longer have much control over it. If the goal and purpose of “government” is to provide for the needs of its citizens our current government is stupid, stupid, stupid, little more than a joke concocted by a malevolent supernatural, perhaps for his/her/its amusement (if you believe in such things as supernatural beings).

Will we go over the (mythical) fiscal cliff, another stupid idea being manipulated by a gang of stupid individuals elected by a stupid electorates in mostly in stupid states for stupid reasons having little or nothing to do with what they seems to regard as stupid reality made up by stupid scientists stupidly trying to deceive us into believing stupid ideas such as global warming and environmental protection. It is all, I fear, too stupid for words. Or, perhaps I am just too stupid to understand it.

The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid.

Art Spander

Fighting Hopelessness

Depression is bad. It can be very bad. I think I have been depressed for years, certainly since the nightmare years of Bush/Cheney. My depression may have lifted temporarily after Obama became President and I had such high hopes for change. Some positive change has occurred, but as this has been muted by continued wars, drones, civil rights violations and such, things I do not approve of, my depression has pretty much continued. It is not helped by the realization that the country of my birth, and the country I love, seems unable to govern itself. But depression can be fleeting, it can disappear, and however unpleasant it is there is always the possibility that things will get better. Depression can be overcome. Depression does not inevitably lead to suicide, in fact it rarely does, although we may tend to think so. This is not the case with hopelessness. Hopelessness is the attitude that leads to suicide. When there is no hope one has no choice but surrender, giving up, acknowledging there is no solution, death becomes the final solution. That is why we must fight hopelessness. I try, but I confess it is becoming more and more difficult.

Realizing, after the last four years of gridlock brought about by the Republicans because they concentrated on making Obama a one term President, they would continue this vendetta even after the latest election, leads me to believe the situation may well be hopeless. The Republican Party has allowed itself to be taken over y a small cadre of basically know-nothing ideologues who seem to believe their thoughtless pledge to an unelected nitwit is more important than their duty to their country. Unhappily there are just enough of them to cause our country to come to a standstill. Virtually nothing can be accomplished while these fools blissfully lead our nation into eventual oblivion. And what is worse, there seems nothing can be done about it, at least until another two years have passed, and even then it is not clear anything can be done about it. I do not believe the Founding Fathers ever visualized a time when one of our two political parties would simply refuse to participate in governing. In most other countries there would be a solution to what I believe to be near treason, but we seem to be helpless in the face of such obvious neglect of duty. We are, I think, on the verge of hopelessness. But I have not completely given up yet, I cling to two possibilities, (1) perhaps we can hold on until 2014 when maybe these nitwits can be eliminated, and (2) I am old enough that suicide will be unnecessary.

My depression/hopelessness was not ameliorated today when Wayne Lapierre, Executive Director of the NRA, provided us with their “meaningful suggestions for action.” Among other things he said was, “The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them.” Unfortunately Lapierre himself is one of these monsters. As a shill for the gun industry for years he has just as much blood on his hands as if he himself has been pulling the trigger. As usual he blamed everyone for the problem of gun violence in our country, the movies, television, music, everything but guns. Indeed, for a while I thought he would manage to get through his absurd account with no mention of guns whatsoever. But finally he did mention guns, suggesting that the only way to prevent gun violence was more gun violence. His solution, carried to its logical conclusion, would have every citizen in the U.S. armed and prepared to defend him/herself from the apparent multitude of demons prepared to attack them at any moment. He would turn all our schools into armed institutions, arm all our teachers, and thus somehow prevent lunatics armed with assault rifles from killing anyone, an idea so implausible and idiotic I am surprised he didn’t choke on it. He also said, “The only way to prevent bad guys with guns from harming us is good guys with guns,” an idea he must have carried over from his days of watching Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers.  I would like to say that Lapierre is an idiot, and perhaps he is, but more importantly he represents the gun manufacturers and the more guns he can sell the more they profit, and they have certainly been doing well of late. Why the more respectable gun owners in the NRA, the ones who started the organization in the first place, let this ridiculous extremist take over their organization is a mystery to me. Their inattention to their legitimate aims may eventually doom them to extinction. I don’t know if Lapierre actually believe all of the nonsense he peddles, I doubt he does, but whether he does or not he is an evil man promoting more evil all in the service of more profit for a much too unregulated business. Ordinary citizens do not need assault rifles or other military hardware, they probably do not even need handguns, but, hey, anything for a buck. I sincerely advise serious gun control believers to not let this become just another hopeless issue for an increasingly hopeless nation.

 Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Well, Damnit, Is it or isn't it, Does it or doesn't it!

Social Security, I have seen and been told by various individuals and news sources, is completely “Off the table.” Similarly, I have been informed repeatedly that Social Security does not have anything whatsoever to do with the deficit. Presumably not everyone agrees with this as it seems Obama may (or may not ) have agreed to cuts in that program during his negotiations with Republicans. Progressives are outraged over this possibility, and for good reason. I have no idea if Obama is indeed going to agree to cuts in Social Security or not (I sincerely hope he is not). In any case why is it so difficult to know whether it adds to the deficit or not, or whether or not it is off the table. This would seem to me to be a pretty straightforward question. I personally believe those who say it has nothing to do with the deficit, but I’m not so sure about whether it is off the table or not. It is apparently not for Republicans who keep worrying over it like a dog with a bone that has been buried several times and has been devoid of sustenance for years, they just somehow keep hoping they will get somewhere with their persistent attempt to destroy it, as they have been trying to do ever since FDR managed to create it so many years ago. Social Security is the greatest government program ever enacted, it has been unbelievably successful, and ought to be expanded.

I fear we are going to have the same situation with the issue of gun control, no matter what Obama might accomplish, there will be those (mostly Republicans, of course) that will never give up in their attempts to arm ever man, woman, and child in America. Even now there are those like Governor Perry of Texas who argues that teachers should be armed, and he is not alone in this completely demented idea (don’t forget Congressman Louie from Texas and many others). How anyone in their right mind (which, unfortunately, I guess eliminates most of these gun nuts) could possibly believe the solution to gun violence is to add more guns is a complete mystery to me. But if that is what they want I suggest they should not stop with merely arming teachers, they should arm the children as well. I suggest that every child entering school for the first grade should receive, along with their other school supplies, a handgun of their choice. You know, either a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol, maybe pink or lavender (they actually produce guns of these colors these days, presumably for ladies) that will fit easily into their childish hands. I have no doubt this idea will absolutely delight the gun manufacturers who have bought the Republican Party to promote and market their product of misery and death. The subject of guns could be part of the regular curriculum just like readin,’ ritin,’ and ‘rithmatic. Among other benefits this would acquaint them with the metric system (6.25 mm equals .25 caliber, 9mm equals .38 caliber, and etc.). As they move up in school they could graduate to bigger and more powerful guns and ammunition, master ballistics and hollow points, concealed weaponry, how to shoot first and ask questions later, stand your ground, and such, until, upon graduation, they could receive as a graduation gift the gun of their choice (probably nothing bigger than .50 caliber). There could be courses in shooting various weapons (maybe starting at first with spear throwing and archery) and fast-draw tournaments (perhaps even knife throwing as an occasional diversion), as part of the regular school sports program.

Such a program would have certain benefits. For example, after a generation or two there would be no one running around with a gun without having been well trained in its operation. There would be a well-trained public in small arms use (unless you wanted to expand the program into the really big stuff) that could easily take up arms in the advent of hostilities (if they so desired, but this could backfire). It would create lots of jobs manufacturing guns, also require more teachers and staff, and so on. It would make the manufacturers money hand over fist and create a demand for certain natural resources benefitting miners, and so on. It would also most likely put an end to bullying as an inscription once found on a handgun suggested: “Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size, just call on me my friend for I will equalize.”   

Of course on the downside it would no longer be necessary to buy Congresspersons thus forcing them to sell out to someone else. It might also lead to gunfights in the alleys behind the schools as children would probably rather shoot than fight. More importantly, it would doubtless lead to much more gun violence than already exists because if everyone was armed and attempted to shoot those who were shooting at them there would be chaos and more and more deaths. Furthermore, unless there was some way to discriminate against some children you would be training the wrong ones as well as the rest. And finally, the militarization of American culture, already an international problem, would become much worse. Actually I don’t think this is a good idea, don’t know why I even thought of it, and I’m sorry for wasting both my and your time.

The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people. People do'. But I think the gun helps.

Eddie Izzard

Claptrap

Claptrap, a useful word we rarely hear anymore, but a perfect description of much of what we are now hearing from Republicans, especially those on the religious right. The NRA itself has been remarkably silent and absent for the past three days but not so some of their obvious sympathizers. Perhaps the most outrageous claim came from Mike Huckabee, who seems to think that “leaving God out of our schools” is what caused the terrible tragedy at the Sandy Hook school. And of course there is the usual chorus from those who seem to believe that the answer to gun violence should be the addition of more guns. Louie “What’s his face,” a Representative from Texas, who is living proof that one can be elected to high office (at least in Texas) even though completely lacking a brain, expressed his great sorrow that the Principal who gave her life trying to stop the shooter did not have her own weapon so she could have “blown his head off” before he could carry out his massacre. Along those same lines, Governor Snyder in Michigan is prepared to sign a bill into law that would allow weapons to be carried into churches and elementary schools. There are many Republicans that subscribe to the completely illogical, even completely nonsensical  belief, that if people only had more guns this would solve the problem of gun violence. And there are still those who argue passionately that “guns don’t kill people, people do.” That is true, guns do not jump up and murder people on their own, but people who have easy access to millions of guns (9 guns for every 10 people in the U.S.) kill people far more easily than those who do not  have such easy access. It is unfortunately true, we are genuinely awash in an ocean of guns and violence. Even most “Savages” did better at social control than we do.

I am trying very hard to suppress my atheistic urge to comment on the recent ecumenical treatment of the tragedy at Sandy Hook. It seems that people of several different faiths agree (more or less) that “God the Father,” who looks after us and cares for us, has called his children “back to heaven” (or whatever), and is that same “Father,” supposedly both omnipresent and omnipotent, who just allowed the slaughter of 20 innocent children and 6 heroic adults. He/She/It is believed somehow to be a benevolent supernatural being worthy of our uncritical adoration. To me this is just another version of claptrap, but if it really does make people feel better about this cruel, unjust, inexplicable, horrible tragedy, that is fine. It doesn’t do that for me.

Our virtually useless “one story” media allows us to not even think about the tragedies that occur on a daily basis in Gaza, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere in the world. While we pretend we can afford to rule the entire world we cannot afford to hear about it as that is apparently too expensive (reporters have to be paid), so much for private enterprise. Of course there is the distinct possibility that those who control our news don’t want us to hear about it, or know about it, or think about it, or comment on it, or talk about it, or form opinions about it, and it would certainly not do were we to try to do anything about it. Such is life in the little bubble of six-packs, sports, TV garbage, do-nothing politics, and local tragedies (Lawrence O'Donnell is now interviewing two people who were Middle School students of the dead Principal 12 years ago!) we are allowed to experience, such is life in the “greatest country on earth” in the early years of the 21^st century.

When I went to bed last night there was one inch of snow on the ground. This morning there was a good 14 inches, maybe slightly more. I have been snowbound all day, perhaps I will be again tomorrow. But not to worry, I have my cats to keep me warm, food and drink, and, mercifully, lots of books.

 Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.

Paul Gauguin 

Guns! Again!

So here we are once again having a discussion of guns and gun control. As you doubtless know this latest concern with guns was motivated by the slaughter of 20 innocent young children and 6 noble adults trying to protect them. As you also know this is hardly the first time we have had to endure mass killings involving guns. Will anything meaningful happen this time to control guns or will it be like all the other times, just talk and no action. I am hoping for the best, at least a semblance of common sense and at least a minimum of control, but don’t bet on it.

On the one hand this can be seen as a pretty easy and straightforward task, controlling guns, that is. I don’t believe there can be a truly successful way of controlling all guns in the U.S., and there will always be some deranged minds that will violate whatever rules or laws there may be with respect to guns. The simplest way to approach the subject is to just consider what kinds of guns are involved. As we have a history of hunting in the U.S. that still continues there are hunters who need their guns, shotguns and rifles. So be it. Then there is the question of handguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, arguably valuable for home or personal protection. Hunting, except perhaps in rare rural instances is basically an anachronism, certainly not a necessity as it once was. It is now considered a sport rather than a necessity and much of it is conducted for trophies. Personally, I think trophy hunting is disgusting but I doubt there is any chance it will be abandoned soon. Anyway, granting the legitimacy of hunting, either for sport or meat, it is obvious that shotguns and rifles are here to stay.

This leaves the more gnarly issue of handguns. Many people, like myself, own handguns. They have no purpose other than presumably offer home and personal protection. Many people believe this is a perfectly sensible use of such otherwise basically useless guns. I suspect it is only in exceedingly rare cases that such firearms are ever employed, but let us grant the legitimacy of owning such weapons.

This brings us to the more difficult question of guns, gun ownership, and types of guns, particularly those guns that have no use other than basically killing other people, military type arms like assault weapons, special high-powered ammunition, silencers, and enlarged magazines capable of giving a shooter more firepower. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to own or use such weapons and arguments to the contrary are basically absurd. Some say we need such weapons to protect ourselves from our government. The idea that a few individuals with AK 47’s or even 50 caliber machine guns can protect themselves from the state or federal governments is no more than a kind of childish fantasy. Another argument, that if everyone had a gun, we would be protected from others with guns is equally foolish. To say, for example, that if the wife of the football player who shot her and then himself would have perhaps lived had she had a gun makes no sense at all. Let’s say she might have lived, but then he might have died, or even worse, both of them might have died. And the idea that if people in movie theaters were armed they could have protected themselves from a shooter is equally fantastic, unless, of course, you envision an all-out battle in which many more would be killed. Similarly, the notion that if you have extra rounds to fire you might be safer assumes that individuals killed with guns are killed after several minutes or hours of firing back and forth at each other, not a situation that actually occurs, except in the movies about the standoff at the OK corral.

No useful purpose is served by ordinary citizens owning assault rifles, high caliber machines guns, extra magazines, and so on, none. Nor does it make sense for people to go armed to church, schools, and bars. This idea seems to assume that the people you might encounter there are just as crazy as you are, a very unlikely case to be sure. The major problem here, I think, is that those in charge of the NRA are lunatics. Maybe they are not lunatics but, if not, they are psychopaths who believe that enriching themselves by promoting the deaths of others is somehow a legitimate profession. Apparently promoting guns, and more guns, and thus enriching the gun manufacturers and themselves is considered by some to be a respectable. It is not. It is anti-social at best, and at worst an attack on government and society in general.  But it is also much more complicated than it seems. Someone observed the other day that we are awash in an ocean of guns, which is true, but more importantly we are awash in a culture of violence. Our entertainment has become more and more violent over time. The vast majority of our movies and television programs feature violence, our video games likewise, our favorite sports, all violent, and not only violent often the worst kind of violence, scenes that would never have been allowed when I was growing up. Sure, we had cowboys and Indians, and detectives and such, but the violence depicted was nowhere near what it is today, and the good guys always won. Now, even as a nation, we believe the way to achieve our goals is through violence. And that violence leads to more violence and on, ad infinitum.

There are so many guns in the U.S. I do not believe there is much of a solution to the problem of guns in general. But at the very least we could ban assault weapons, enhanced clips, and all of the military-type hardware that has no place in a civil society, and we could insist upon universal background checks. I hope we will soon do so.

No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded.

Margaret Mead

Marketing Misinformation and False Sincerity

I do not mean in any way to diminish the horror and the agony of the terrible tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. It was a tragedy almost beyond belief made even more tragic by the unusually young age of the innocent victims. It is unfortunately also an example of how the media markets misinformation thus providing an excuse for days of advertising revenue.

I don’t remember the precise details of all the coverage of this horrible event, but I remember enough to know the media, as usual, simply cannot or will not wait for the facts to become known. As I recall at first we were told there had been a shooting but they didn’t know anything about it, then we were told that the Principal had been shot by a 24 year-old man. We learned nothing of children being victims until sometime later when we were told 28 children were dead, then there was the claim the shooter had first shot his father at home, went to the school where his mother was a teacher and shot her and some children. Finally it was 20 children and 6 adults. Granted the story changed as more and more information was being obtained, but why could the media not have waited at least for a time instead of reporting every new piece of (often) faulty information. They could have at least waited until the final body count. And, of course, while all this was going on there was the speculation about how it could have happened, what could have been the motive, what did the ex FBI profiler think might have happened, what kind of personality might have been involved, and on and on about questions that could not possibly have been answered. Even some of the children were forced in front of the camera and microphone to describe what they had seen and heard! This coverage in my opinion was absolutely shameful, but of course the media thrives on misery and death and rarely passes up an opportunity to cash in on it. Of course I want to know something about it, but do I really have to listen to the uncles and aunts of some of the children, someone who once drove a bus he rode on, people who knew the teacher (who was not, in fact, a teacher), every passerby who can be cajoled into giving an interview, psychologists who know nothing about the perpetrator but analyze him/her, those who confess to knowing nothing of the facts of the case but offer us their opinions anyway? This coverage went on for hours, even days, and is not over yet. How many television ads do you think you were exposed to during all this time? And it was not as if there were no other stories anywhere in the world that might well have been of equal or even greater importance, our drones killing innocent children, the civil war in Syria, the troubles in Egypt, our terrible sanctions on Iran (mostly harming innocent women and children)and so on. No, for many hours the media was focused on this one story, although grievously horrible, mostly just giving them a (relatively cheap) excuse for more and more television ads rather than any other important news. The media seems no longer to exist for the purpose of bringing us “all the news all the time,” but , rather, the one story of the moment they can exploit to the maximum. So much for what used to be proudly considered “The Fourth Estate.”

 And what else do we get in increasingly large doses from our media – advertising. Advertising that consists almost exclusively of individuals with a capacity and talent for false sincerity. I think Fred Thompson may be one of the best examples with his serious pitch for reverse mortgages, but virtually all of our ads are predicated on the same use of false sincerity, for beauty creams, deodorant, kitchen ware, automobiles, toothpaste, loans, travel, insurance, credit cards, medicines, and virtually everything and anything else you might imagine. And in most cases we are confronted with pretty girls, dignified actors, hardworking housewives, and even children, looking directly into the camera and telling us in all (false) sincerity just how great their product is. It is highly doubtful in most cases the hucksters have ever even used the products they assure us are wonderful.

When you consider how much of television time is taken up either by ads or by endless premature and inaccurate reports on the latest sensational “news” I think it is entirely fair to say they are making their money by marketing false sincerity and misinformation. Sad, but true, and we seem to just accept this as an ordinary and expected part of our lives, modern day snake oil for the “Rubes.” I confess to being one of them but I am trying more and more not to be one.    

No one can deny that much of our modern advertising is essentially dishonest; and it can be maintained that to lie freely and all the time for private profit is not to abuse the right of free speech, whether it is a violation of the law or not. But again the practical question is, how much lying for private profit is to be permitted by law?

Carl L. Becker

Why do It?

I cannot help but wonder why it is Republicans do the things they do. The Michigan legislature, for example, a lame duck bunch if ever there was one, has been busy passing all kinds of things that they have to know are not popular and not in the public interest, anti union stuff, anti abortion stuff, and so on. It is pretty clear that these things (I do not know what else to call them) are eventually going to have to be changed which will result more or less in their being returned to their original form. I cannot believe these idiots can possibly believe they are going to pass things that are going to stay passed and that will eventually be overturned. So what is the point of passing them in the first place? The only outcome of this lame duck nonsense will be to create confusion and waste a great deal of time. Perhaps that is what they intended. I cannot see any other purpose in passing things that the public does not want just because you have the temporary means to do so.

Similarly, why is Boehner holding up the vote in the House that would maintain the tax breaks for 98% of the taxpayers. He must know this is inevitable, it is going to happen, and holding it up merely creates an enormous waste of time and also does nothing to improve the image of Republicans. So why does he do it? He cannot possibly believe that by doing this he is going to stop Obama from raising the tax rate on multi-millionaires and billionaires. Maybe it is true that he is simply waiting either for the very last minute to demonstrate to his Tea Partyers that he did what he could, maybe he is waiting until he is re-elected as Speaker of the House, maybe he is just helpless in the hands of idiots. In any case this is just another complete waste of time. The House could be co-operating in doing the public’s business but I guess they are too busy doing what they are being bribed to do. This is most certainly not the way our so-called democracy is supposed to work.

I hope John McCain and his creepy little sidekick, Lindsey Graham, are happy with their disgusting “victory” over Susan Rice. I’m not at all certain she was the best person for the job of Secretary of State, but I do know their attack on her was vicious and unfounded. First of all, contrary to their slanderous remarks, she was eminently qualified for the job. Second, their attempt to characterize her as stupid merely revealed their own stupidity. A graduate of Stanford, a Rhodes Scholar, a Ph.D. from Oxford, 20 years of successful public service does not indicate stupidity on her part. They could have attacked her on her record but by attacking her as a person, knowing that as U.N. Ambassador she could not easily fight back, they simply revealed their cowardice (and most probably racism). McCain is, among other things, a vindictive poor loser. Rice apparently at one time made some remarks against him, and of course Obama defeated him in the election, so mounting this sleazy attack on her helped him get revenge on both of them.

So here we are again, starting to talk about 2016 even though the 2012 election is barely over. I think this is ridiculous. But as everyone is doing it I guess I will comment. Will Hillary run for President in 2016? Yes, I believe she will. She no doubt deserves and requires some rest for her many hectic years in public life, but I cannot believe that a woman as ambitious as Hillary will pass up the chance to become the first female President of the United States. And, if Obama has a successful second term and then supports her, along with her husband, she should easily win (not that running for President should be considered easy). If she were running and the election was coming up soon she would certainly win. I can’t see any potential Republican candidate that could beat her, and if Republicans run the same kind of second and third rate candidates they ran this time they would fully deserve another beating.

 If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.

Aristotle

Remembering the Past

It was George Santayana who said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Generally speaking I tend to believe the past never really repeats itself as things do inevitably change, the same conditions do not usually exist, and even people’s attitudes and values change dramatically over time. However, something is happening now in the United States that may very well prove Santayana right.

The best example of this is occurring right now in Michigan although this is just the most recent manifestation of what seems to be happening more widely throughout our country. We seem to be approaching the brink of a repetition of the terrible labor wars of the 1920’s and 30’s, when the labor unions fought and finally won concessions from the “robber barons” and corporations that were so shamelessly exploiting them. The current corporate interests and the obscenely wealthy that have benefitted so generously in recent years seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past. They are currently attacking labor unions in a blatant attempt to destroy them and so far have been moderately successful. The terrible imbalance between the haves and the have-nots is every bit as great now as it has ever been and very similar to the conditions that led to the great union wars of the 20’s and 30’s. I guess people have forgotten just how terrible these “wars” were, when corporate thugs and “Pinkertons” were hired to beat and kill union organizers and the workers fought back so violently. At the moment the focus seems to be on Michigan where the labor unions are believed to have come into maturity in the city of Flint. But that was not the only locus of union activity by any means. Right here in North Idaho, in the silver mines around Wallace, Burke, Gem, Mullan, Kellogg, and other small mining towns, the battle was joined between the two factions. At one point union members commandeered a train and dynamite and blew up the Bunker Hill Smelter in Kellogg. This was after years of violence during which both miners and strikebreakers lost their lives. And of course there were the famous garment workers strikes, the automobile strikes, the longshoremen’s strikes and so on. It was a terrible time and out of the violence finally grew the 40 hour work week, Sundays off, the eight hour day, vacations, health care, and so on. I’m sure that one of the reasons the labor unions have been weakened in recent years is because so many people alive today do not remember this history of violence and tend to take for granted the 40 hour work week and etc. Either they are not aware of what conditions were like prior to the union movement or they have simply forgotten. Twelve hour work days were by no means uncommon, there were no benefits, the pay was meager, and the suffering was great.

I suspect that some of our current billionaires and multi-millionaires are aware of this history and are now rather begrudgingly suggesting that perhaps they should pay a bit more in taxes before it is too late and the people with their pitchforks will once again arise. Even these more enlightened souls are not offering a great deal, just enough to placate the threatening masses, but their less enlightened peers seem unmoved by the plight of ordinary citizens and are still clamoring for more and more. So far there has not been much violence but we have now seen the divisiveness they are creating between the pro-union workers and those who prefer to benefit from the unions without paying their fair share of the costs. A bit of violence broke out in Michigan when a Fox reporter was punched out. I think there is little doubt that the frustration engendered by Governor Snyder’s sneak attack on the unions in Michigan could very well eventually lead to aggression and violence. In fact, if things do not change and the terrible imbalance in wealth continues I would not be surprised to see the whole country rise up in protest. The re-election of Barack Obama sent a clear message of where public sentiment lies and if Obama fails in his attempt to change things I can only imagine the situation will get worse. And it’s really not much that Obama is requesting from the obscenely wealthy, a paltry 3 or 4 % raise in their taxes. Republicans are making a serious mistake if they persist in insisting on protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. They don’t seem to perceive they are waving the red flag in front of the bull. They have now successfully robbed the middle class and the poor for years, weakened the unions, reduced wages and other benefits, plunged millions into poverty, stolen their homes and pensions and still want more. I do not believe this can continue much longer, nor should it, and if it does the consequences may be far more serious than is apparently anticipated.

I would not be surprised to learn there has already been more violence and conflict than we have been told about by the MSM as the media itself is in the pockets of the oppressors. They will not tell us the truth about anything that does not serve their purposes.

Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge.

Cicero  

"Nits make Lice"

During the horrible (American) Indian wars in the 1860’s one of the famous (or, more properly, infamous) Indian fighters was one Colonel John M. Chivington, who believed it was his duty to kill Indians:

“When it was pointed out to him that attacking Black Kettle’s peaceful camp would be ‘murder in every sense of the word,’ Chivington became angry and replied, ‘Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians. I have come to kill Indians and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians.’”

The “any means” included all Indians, old people, women, children, and even infants as well as warriors, and it also meant, literally, any means:

“The people tried to run and hide but the soldiers murdered indiscriminately, men, women, children, even infants. They pulled little children and women out from their hiding places in the rocks and killed them all. Eyewitness accounts indicated that all the bodies were scalped but beyond that they were also mutilated. Men, women, and children’s genitals were cut out and displayed in various manners. Some soldiers stretched the women’s genitals over their saddle horns, others wore them on their hats or carried them around on sticks. Fingers were cut off and infants were abandoned to die. All of this was apparently done with the full knowledge of Chivington who had declared previously in a speech in which he advocated killing and scalping all Indians, including infants, as ‘Nits make lice!’”

This was not unusual during the heyday of colonialism. Here is a similar example from Australia:

 “It was commonplace that when a settler was killed posses would be formed and every Aborigine they came across was slaughtered, men, women, and children, no exceptions. “Suppose you don’t kill the pickaninnis, in time they become warriors and kill you. If you kill the women, no more piccaninnis are born.” (a native policeman, 1857).

Having no first -hand experience in combat I do not know what atrocities are committed these days other than the few that occasionally get reported. I suspect it is true that things may not be not quite as terrible as they once were. I doubt that modern soldiers actually kill infants by bashing them against rocks, bayoneting them and such, and perhaps never murder infants at all (except as collateral damage). However, it seems the Israelis seem never to have been shy about killing Palestinian children, sometimes even at play (there have been many reports of this), and if you know the Israelis would like nothing better than to be rid of the Palestinians (which they have made quite clear) I believe there may well be a parallel here.

More to the point here is that according to the Military Times, the U.S. army now has a policy of killing Afghan children if they are suspected of having “potential hostile intent.” I think this statement came about as the result of a recent admission that three young boys had been killed by our military. As the boys, 8, 10, and 12, were digging in the ground we are being led to believe this represents hostile intent. Young boys digging in the ground, how unusual! I don’t know the real particulars of this but I do know that killing children because they might have potential hostile intent is insanely immoral. Things change but stay the same, it’s just as disgusting now as it ever was.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Voltaire

Is it Possible?

Can it be that perhaps, maybe, possibly, hopefully, incredibly, Bibi Yahoo has finally gone too far and the world community will react so strongly he will have to back down? I know this seems improbable, but apparently his new settlement plan involves building 3000 new Israeli homes on the one last strip of land that will render a two state solution impossible. It does seem to be the case that virtually everyone is now outraged about this latest Israeli war crime. I assume this means that anyone or everyone interested in the two state solution, if they are truly committed to that, will have to intervene or just acknowledge there will not be such a solution. Will the U.S., that has claimed all along to favor the two state solution, and is the one power that might be able to do something about this latest outrage, finally  take meaningful action against it? I wouldn’t bet on it.

What will happen if Israel is allowed to actually build these homes and kill the possibility of a viable Palestinian state? It seems to me there are only two alternatives: (l) the result will be an Israel that has managed to fracture the Palestinian community into a bunch of small, insignificant communities spread out over the fringe, or (2) a one state apartheid nation with a large population of second class citizens that will eventually outnumber the Israelis. This second possibility will eventually mean the end of any pretense of a Jewish state, the first will probably mean the same thing but only after a much longer time span. Personally, I think Netanyahu’s decision to build these settlements is basically suicidal, but there seems to be no limit to his colonialism and greed. President Obama has once again asked Israel not to further expand their settlements, but if he does not act drastically to prevent it he will once again simply be baying at the moon. Of course even if he tries to take serious steps against this latest Israeli outrage our nitwit Congress that mindlessly supports all Israeli war crimes will probably block him from doing much of anything. We will probably see dega vu all over again, all talk, no action. The Israeli tail not only wags the U.S. dog, it apparently wags the entire world community as well. All hail Benjamin Netanyhu, Dictator of the Middle East!

Things here on the home front don’t seem to be doing much better. Republicans apparently cannot accept that Obama won the election and is trying to do the bidding of the American public. They cannot give up their support for the billionaires and multi-millionaires that are keeping them in office. One would think their obsessive concern for protecting the obscenely wealthy was entirely irrational were it not for the fact they are being paid generously to do so. And many of them simply cannot accept a Black President no matter what he does. They cannot hide their racism no matter how many code words and innuendoes they employ. Their racism, along with their homophobia, will eventually go the way of the Dodo bird as the younger generations do not accept it. Out of the mouths of babes does, indeed, come wisdom.

Winter seems finally to have come to Sandhill. We now have snow that stays on the ground and it is cold, not North Dakota or Minnesota cold, but cold. I think it was 15 degrees this morning, there is ice on our country road, and I suppose it will stay this way until about March. I don’t mind the snow. I hate the ice, and I don’t really like being cold (age, I guess). I also confess to not being enthralled by the holiday season, the period from November through New Year’s Eve seems to be much more ado about merchandising and not so much about good cheer, fellowship, and peace on earth in spite of the pretense. It will be harder this year without my wonderful wife, but I have a fine son, daughter-in-law, and grandson. I count my blessings.

Next to a circus there ain't nothing that packs up and tears out faster than the Christmas spirit.

Kin Hubbard