Memorial Day 2010

I spent some of this Memorial Day touring the Golden Gate National Cemetery. It was my part in honoring those men and women who have given their time, many of whom sacrificed their lives, in order to keep the American Dream alive.

This is one of many, many National Cemeteries countrywide, and as I walked between monuments and looked out across the horizon, I added one more item to the list of things I cannot wrap my mind around. In this instance it is the number of people it has taken to make heroic contributions to our Nation. The presence of monuments to spouses and children also are a reminder that sacrifice goes beyond the soldiers.

So I will finish today giving thanks to all who have fallen, all who have served, and all who sacrificed through their loved one serving to protect our country.

Photos from Golden Gate National Cemetery

Golden Gate National Cemetery - Memorial Day 2010

What Were You Doing April 21, 1982?

It was a Wednesday. Twenty-four days before my first wedding. And nothing of any apparent note happened in MY life.

However, on April 21 1982, the thirty-ninth President of the United States, a man vanquished from office after one term, was the subject of an announcement at Emory University. On that day President Jimmy Carter was appointed as University Distinguished Professor, and effective September 1 of that year he would establish a policy research center. The Carter Center was conceived, if not officially birthed.

Today I watched a recent video report by Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times about the near eradication of the Guinea Worm parasite. (WARNING: This video includes graphic images.) Mr. Kristoff is reporting (and op-editorializing) from Africa, and as one would expect, the work arising out of this junket is not given to smiley, happy feelings.

You might ask "What's so big about eliminating Guinea Worm?" To put it in perspective, it would be only the second disease in history that humans have eradicated, and the Carter Center is one of the key participants in pushing for the final solution. Of course, President Carter is not accomplishing this feat by his actions alone.

But here's the point. In the twenty-nine years since he was routed in an election that would have sent many people into a bitter retirement, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter have dedicated their lives to try and make the world a better place for many millions of people. Their work has lasted over one-half of my life span to date and for the millions their work has helped there are ten of thousands of people that have also played a role.

One person's vision creating action in thousands. He may not (probably will not) be ultimately remembered as an exceptional President. However, Jimmy Carter is an outstanding leader of compassion and action that we of Planet Earth are fortunate to have.

Gold Medal Intolerance

It’s Winter Olympics time again. Two weeks of being amazed by athletes performing feats that result in serious eye and neck strain to average humans watching the competition from the comfort of their couch.

Each Olympics brings with it an inevitable quest to earn national alpha dog status in the international community of bragging rights, which allows overweight slobs around the world to lay some unexplained claim to achievement when their countrymen or countrywomen are victorious. Also, based on a recent Facebook exchange, it authorizes the same individuals to let their “patriotic” intolerances fly.

In the USofA, freedom of speech is everyone’s right, to the extent it has been deemed protected by judicial review. So a person who uses that right to burn a flag in protest IS just as protected as the person who speaks out for a Constitutional Amendment against such an act. And it is my right to say that, in my humble opinion, both of those individuals are terribly misguided and possibly mentally unbalanced. But how must you act when you win a gold medal? Well, according to one of my Facebook “friends”: “USA Kearney wins the GOLD. National Anthem is played. She does not sing or put her hand over her heart. Alot of bloodshed for our freedom, girlfriend. Leave my country.”

I watched a video of the medal ceremony (Warning: video requires installation of Microsoft Silverlight). Hannah Kearney did not put her hand over her heart, which according to official protocol was inappropriate. She did however keep her eyes trained on the flag, (the only other requirement of the official protocol) with tear-filled eyes. Those eyes seemed to carry joy, shock, and amazement. She kept her hands still and in front of her clutching the winner’s bouquet. Her arms seemed to be trembling and there seemed to be no way that reasonably minded person would interpret Ms. Kearney's omission as an action of disrespect.

Beyond that though, where the hell does somebody come off reading that Ms. Kearney was somehow dissing all the “bloodshed for freedom”? There must be an edition of Intolerance for Dummies that advises readers to make their case by throwing in an emotional phrase, thus allowing the fellow intolerants, to accept the statement carte blanch. But I will get to the other intolerants later.

Finally, there’s her “Leave my country.” This is from a person who works for a law enforcement agency.

Maybe I slept during Civics in high school, but I thought I heard somewhere that, especially in the USA, law enforcement is a field where evidence, presumption of innocence and no cruel or unusual punishment are supposed to reign. Yes, we saw the omission, but put in perspective it is doubtful that it was intentional. Perspective being that less than an hour earlier, Ms. Kearney was in a mentally focused “zone” that allowed her to win. It is a mental focus that many Americans never achieve except when they are engulfing their Thanksgiving meal.

Even so, is expulsion a reasonable punishment for an omission? If expulsion is the sentence for Ms. Kearney’s fopaw, I’m afraid to know what will happen when I confess something here. Although I make it a point to stand, face the flag, put my hand over my heart, and sing when the National Anthem is played, there was a Tigers' game in 1989, when my stupid cousin kicked a beverage over on me. On that day, I spent the entire time from “Oh say” to “home of the brave” silently swearing at him while wiping sticky liquid off my pants and shoes. I now have to hope those action do not qualify me for lethal injection. So Ms. Kearney, if I’m on the jury you can stay in my America.

I wrote what I thought was a gentle nudge toward a more level approach to my Facebook "friend". Don't agree JLA. In our country of all countries, we should be big enough to accept differences in actions and not judge someone else's patriotism by what we see vs. what we would do or would want to see.

Then, the other intolerant friends of "friend" began to weigh in.

Put her on the first boat with all the rest of the people that dont want to be here!!!!!Than sink it!!!U.S.A. all the way!!!!

Obviously this person didn’t have the intellectual originality to come up with anything worthy of considering, unless he’s a ship builder. This rant has probably been around since Noah put the people he DID like on a boat so they wouldn’t drown. I’ve heard about putting “undesirables” on a boat and sinking the ship many times. To list a few, the “undesirables” have been lawyers, African Americans, lawyers, Jews, lawyers, the New York Yankees, liberals, Muslims, lawyers, the special class consisting of liberal African American Jewish Muslim lawyers, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Unfortunately, I don’t think the contributor of the above is bright enough to understand that you can make the suggestion, but unless you make the final passenger list, you might end up on the boat.

The next comment was from a person who, in taking a pure capital investment approach, did not allow facts to get in her way. You should have to be PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN and SHOW IT to get benefits and my tax money from this country and take a drug test !!! Cheers.

I’ll give this woman an A for originality, but like an ice skater that keeps landing wrong, she gets an F for execution. The United States Olympic Team is one of the few teams that does not receive public funding. (See link) So based on her own argument since she has no tax money invested, she has no say in what the athletes do, otherwise known as the STFU Principal. This is especially apt when this woman’s investment of keeping her self-righteous ass on a couch or in front of her computer is compared to the time and money that Ms. Kearney and her parents invested in leading up to the gold medal performance.

As respects drug testing, the IOC is somewhere around 40 years ahead of this woman, and Hannah Kearney had met the IOC’s requirements even before she went to the podium.

As the intolerance started, so did it end. The final “say” by the originator was: You guys are so right !! Sorry Gary, in this great Country, the National Anthem is not judged, nor is it a choice. Just accepted & loved. Like our Flag. God Bless America !!!

Intolerance for Dummies must also emphasize the strength of a good circular argument by agreeing with other like minded people and adding new and more emotionally charged terms, that really have nothing to do with the facts or the matter at hand. I don't claim to be the final authority, but I also have not read any rants in any publication conservative, neoconservative, or neanderthal, that asserts that Ms. Kearney was being intentionally disrepctful of the flag. Hence, I still find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand how anyone in their right mind could think that the National Anthem was being “judged” at that podium.

So JLA, for your actions, you are receiving this week’s gold medal in intolerant mindsets and actions. There’s no award ceremony, but please feel free to sing the Star Spangled Banner as many times and in as many locations as you want. That is always OK here in my America, the Land of the Free.

It's Not Easy Being Green

When I arrived home on the Friday before Valentine's Day, and noted the box of panty liners in the living room, I thought that Karla was probably not having a good day on the eve of a day dedicated to romance. Then, I noted several panty liners taped to the ceiling, absorbent side up. I realized that with a weather forecast calling for steady showers the entire weekend, that there would be more than love raining o'er me.

Most people know that Karla and I make a strong effort to be environmentally-friendly residents of Planet Earth. Karla is an avowed tree hugger. Me, I was impressed as a child by a sign I read entering a park: Take nothing but memories. Leave nothing but footprints. I don't pretend to think that it's an entirely practical way to try to live, so I've amended the last sentence a bit: Leave nothing but footprints and as little other crap as you possibly can.

And it is directly a result of our eco-amorous pursuits that we are up to our rafters in Kotex this weekend. Almost from the time we oversaw the installation of solar electric panels on our roof, there has been some sort of reverse dharma that has befallen us. Improper engineering resulted in the system producing significantly less electricity than we thought we would. Although the three-year drought has prevented us from experiencing the worst of outcomes, the last two years, we have been scrambling to patch leaks caused by the improper footings used for the panels on the relatively small pitch of our roof.

We are now waving the super absorbent white flag. Before we "go green" with mold inside our living room, we have decided it's time to go "un-green" by removing and selling the system. It's not that home solar electric generation doesn't work. It just won't work for us. Hopefully, wherever the system ends up, it will produce more benefit to it's new owner than it has to us.

At a minimum, we're hoping the only showers occurring in the house are in the bathroom.

Book Review: White House Ghosts

There's nothing supernatural described in the pages of Robert Schlesinger's White House Ghosts. Unless you consider how remarkable it is that the Presidents deemed to have led the most regarded administrations in the last half of the 20th century were the most effective communicators with the American public. Another nugget a reader will mine from Schlesinger's work is that each President had some level of depth in substance and thought of where they wanted to take the nation. Schlesinger avoids the easy trap of attempting to report on and then judge the correctness of those policies and opts to adhere to the former course. Still, his research and the flow of his work brings the reader around to a singular conclusion: Only leaders that clearly voice their vision will get Americans to follow.

Listed at a daunting 581 pages, inclusive of 100 pages of bibliographical references, Schlesinger devotes one chapter to each Commander-in-Chief beginning with Roosevelt, whose fireside chats are consistently thought of as the onset of modern media presidencies. Readers get insight into the early evolutionary stages of political media, where grand programs began in lower case (i.e. Roosevelt talked about a "new deal for Americans"). And in an argument against evolution, we see that for the sake of a sound bite culture, Presidents began demanding their speechwriters develop capital letter names for their ideas. Could the focus on form over substance be an underlying cause of why Americans feel their government is failing them? Again, Schlesinger avoids being a judge, but for my part, the change in focus cannot be ignored, and words without substance at best allows for achieveing short-term agendas.

You will need to be a history buff to enjoy poring through all the pages. However, one benefit about Schlesinger's structuring of White House Ghosts is that you can pick and choose which Administrations that you will use Schlesinger's key through the back door of the White House.

I took the full sixty-plus year tour, and felt it was time well spent. It gave me several moments of pause to think how one properly worded speech could have changed much in our history. For example, what would have happened if Richard Nixon would have admitted early on that there are times when persons in power can lose sight of what is right instead of declaring "I am not a crook"? Once he made that declaration and then acted as if he was imperially exempt, his words and actions were too conflicting for the public to accept. Had he taken the mea culpa approach it is entirely feasible that Americans would have forgiven him, wanting to put it behind them as they did twenty-four years later during the Clinton impeachment.

By the time that I finished White House Ghosts I had drawn one additional conclusion. Now that we live in an era of instantaneous communications, the speechwriter's pen will continue to be one of the most potent weapons, or tools, of those that seek to lead.