Sailing to Oblivion: June 5, 2017

It’s like history never happened for some folks, so here we go again.

Today, I worry about our ability to learn, not only to learn our “timeses” and “takeaways” as the old folks used to call them. That ability is under siege, of course. Only yesterday did our statewide newspaper report how at least ten state legislators accepted money to visit a rally by a group seeking universal "school choice," i.e  ending  public education and placing it in the hands of private and/or religious schools.

I worry that the common people of our future will be educated just enough to operate computers, repair robots, or, failing at those chores, to say “welcome to Bigmart.”

Equally troubling, though, is our apparent inability to learn the lessons of history.

It’s like we never learned of entire civilizations being brutally destroyed because of religious fervor. That would come as a hell of a disappointment to the ancient Midianites.

It’s like we never witnessed a Treaty of Versailles, in which each of the victorious countries of World War One vied for its own economic interest, with total disregard for the future of the losing countries.

It’s like we never witnessed the emergence and growth of the Nazi party that occurred because of the Treaty of Versailles.

It’s like we never witnessed the good people of a country stand silent as a national leader encouraged groups of thugs to attack political opponents and chosen scapegoats.

It’s like we never witnessed the result of a country that allowed, through apathy, cynicism, or selfishness, hate groups to germinate and flourish in its heartland.

It’s like we never witnessed the destruction that can be wrought by leaders who seek personal or party gain above the fellowship of unity.

One ends up being wearied to the bone by the daily efforts of keeping up with history, but terrified at the thought of stopping. That’s where I find myself today, June 7, 2017.

It's as if it never happened.

Sailing to Oblivion: June 4, 2017

Fear and loathing is a catchy phrase for a book title, but no way to run a country. As Hunter S. Thompson said, though, “Buy the ticket, take the ride.” We bought the ticket, and now we are riding into oblivion in a country ruled by fear and loathing. What irony.

Reading the news today, I can’t help believing that the major policy determinant emerging from the current American presidency is the desire to eradicate the memory of President Barack Obama in the manner of Egyptian kings defacing the statues of their predecessors.

No matter how sound, or popular the existing policy may be, the goal will be, not to amend it, not to replace it with a sounder tool, not to ignore it, not to admit, however grudgingly, the efficacy of a rival’s work, but simply to end it. “I’ll show him,” sounds better as comic book dialogue than as political policy.

There are even plans to renew the nearly 60-year-old cold war with a Cuban president who isn’t even still alive. This poses economic damage, with no benefit whatsoever to the average American, to our farmers and many businesses, not to mention simple humanity.

Then there are the plans to renew the long-failed attempt to eradicate drug problems through incarceration. Of course, this plan has another element in addition to pure spite. The idea seems to have germinated from the mind of a man who has substantial investments in private prisons.

The idiocy of this policy becomes more evident when one considers that voters, even in a conservative state such as mine, are increasingly voting to legalize the use of marijuana. And too, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to name more than a few people one knows who have never used drugs in any form. As the movie character said, “I’ve been to college.”

In the news, I read yesterday that a sizable section of our population is composed of Americans who “don’t believe in the scientific facts of global climate change.” Believe? Science is not something in which someone believes or doesn’t believe. Goodness gracious. Jump from a tall building and see if the Law of Gravity cares whether you believe in it or not.

When the last tree on earth is cut, as the last tree on Easter Island was, nature won’t care if we don’t believe in the scientific fact of photosynthesis, not even if we declare loudly that we believed in individual property rights more than we believed in survival.

When we start bringing back the iron lungs for children with polio, the disease won’t care that we claimed a right not to believe in the healing power of scientific facts.

When Trump Tower is under water up to its second floor, the Atlantic Ocean won’t care that an American president didn’t believe in climate change.

“Buy the ticket, take the ride.”

Ain't that the truth?

Sailing to Oblivion: June 3, 2017

On this day in 1864, American generals Grant and Meade learned a tragic lesson: an entrenched and fanatical enemy can withstand determined frontal attacks. Will we ever learn?

For the Union, at Cold Harbor that day, the result was some 7,000 Union casualties in less than an hour of fighting. Later, for the “leaders” who thrust the planet into World War One, the lesson cost the combined countries some 17 million deaths, 11 million of them associated with the failed tactic of assaults on entrenched forces.

Our “lightening war” to pacify the Middle East is going on 15 years now and will probably end only when the last few homo sapiens die of thirst.

But we press on, as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “boats against the current.”

We, as a nation, appear to be struggling against that current. I sense that the America I know is more divided today than it was a week ago, and more divided than I have seen it since the tragedy of the Vietnam War.

This week features two opposing forces, as at Cold Harbor. One, let’s call them The Deniers, is a tightly entrenched group consisting of a “Duke’s Mixture” of true-believers. Some in the group don’t recognize science as a source of guidance for a healthy planet. Instead they believe in a supernatural being who will, eventually, save us from destruction in mystical fashion, although this has never happened in the history of the earth. They will vote for any politician, no matter how craven or mendacious, who simply promises to follow their religious agenda and eschew those of others.

Other members of the group may or may not believe in science as a proper endeavor. Truth is: they don’t really care as long as it, science, doesn’t interfere with their goal of exponentially increasing profits, thereby adding mathematics to the pantheon of truths they ignore.

Another faction has sworn allegiance to a political party, and would follow it lockstep into a firestorm of destruction that would make the Battle of the Somme look like a tea party.

Whatever one may think, this group is entrenched and practically impervious to frontal assault. It has, after all, unimaginable sources of money at its disposal, and its battalions include massive churches, a supportive media channel, and popular commentators, on radio, on TV, and in print. Perhaps, though, its most powerful weapon is its ability to instill and employ false realities into the minds of so many Americans. “Be afraid,” they say, “and we will tell you of whom to be afraid. But first, be very afraid.”

On the opposing side are what we might call The Believers. They trust science to do good. “Look,” they say, “it wasn’t prayer or politics that eliminated polio as a world-wide terror. It was science.” This group believes in the power of education. It promotes a diversity of both thought and lifestyle. “Trust us,” they say.

This group includes its own fanatics. They push the others into a myriad of unsupportable positions, from denouncing our brave police officers to denying free speech that doesn’t fit their world view. Also, they aren’t above denying science when it presents facts concerning such things as the food they wish to eat.

In short, the Believers are certain they are right. They believe in the efficacy of logic over emotion.

Ah, logic. This brings me back to Cold Harbor. As our planet slowly dies, the group of believers, seeing the danger, still attacks with logic. As the bodies, in a figurative sense, pile up before the belief-structure breastworks, they attack again and again.

What will we do? I honestly don’t know, and that is why today I see little chance for healing the breach that threatens us. In olden days, leaders would sooth us by saying that we only had fear itself to fear, inspire us by saying that our country was too great—a city shining on a hill—to be divided, or challenge the “better angels of our nature” to think what we might do for our country.

We long for such inspiration now, but instead find a social media outlet filled with taunts, falsehoods, and divisiveness, a dialogue built upon the boast of “We won. you lost. Now begone with you to losers’ hell,” hardly a balm for a discordant reality.

That’s where I see us today. Maybe tomorrow …

Maybe tomorrow.

Another day. Another battle.

Sailing Into Oblivion: June 2, 2017

My sainted mother once told me that I would be known, among other things, by the company I keep. But Nicaragua and Syria? Holy outcasts Batman!

Okay, okay. I know it’s not funny that we are now one of only three major countries that care nothing about the future of our planet. You can’t blame a man, though, for trying to lighten the mood a little this morning, the first day of our gradual descent into Gotterdammerung.

I awoke this morning to the memory of the unforgettable scene from A Night to Remember, the 1958 British drama film adaptation of Walter Lord's 1955 book. The scene: as the Titanic tilts bow downward and the crew and passengers race about in panic, one elderly gentlemen sits in the stateroom reading as if nothing had happened. He’ll accompany his passion into eternity.

Is that what I’ll do? Maybe. Then, I also read yesterday where some historian was encouraging folks to journal and keep their daily reactions to this debacle that is occurring in our country. That sounds like a good idea, but I’m not sure that the results will be of as much use to future historians (not likely to be any) as they will be to future visitors to our planet, perhaps even the originators of some transpermatic experiment that created what we call the human experience.

This series began as an attempt to present my personal, but opposing views, to friends without resorting to the vitriol that characterizes so much of modern interface among Americans. I’ve succeeded somewhat, only on occasion lapsing into anger or disgust. You can’t blame a man for a slip or two.

Now though, I don’t think I can discuss modern America absent an underlying feeling that we are in one hell of a mess. I think we are, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln when he spoke in a small Pennsylvania village years ago, being tested in a great war of ideas to see if a nation conceived as ours can endure. My bipolar brain says, “I hope so, but fear not.”

I will gladly consider and reflect upon evidence-base arguments to the contrary.

In my opinion, we being led by man, condoned and supported by his party, who has not, since being elected in November, 2016, and even before, issued one sentence designed to bring about harmony to the discordant voices and clash of ideas that are tearing America apart. Wouldn’t we do better, as a country, to have a leader who replaced, “losers,” and “lock her up,” with the words of a far greater man? For example

“… We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

What leads a country from such magnificent eloquence to covfefe? I am simply aghast. One can only hope against hope that future visitors to our planet might fail to uncover, "I am elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris."

That’s how I feel today, June 7, 2017. Now, I’m going to make sure my mental tray tables are in their upright and locked position and my ideological seat belt is fastened securely. You can’t blame a man for that. I fear it is going to be a bumpy ride.

Reconciliation: 26

When I was ten, they told me that the world might end from nuclear explosions. When I was 21, they told me that I might die at the hands of an unknown freedom fighter. When I was 30, they told me that I might die from the effects of obesity. All my life, people have been telling me I might die.

Each time I faced predictions of annihilation, cool heads, luck, or careful living saw me through. The concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) helped stave off a Dr. Strangelove ending to the planet. Keeping my head down and eschewing volunteering of any sort helped bring me luck, and guided me safely out of a war zone. Thirty years of daily exercise kept the old ticker pounding on schedule.

Now, they say we will all die unless we quit strangling our planet. This one has me worried. The planet has endured five extinctions in its long history and a sixth is looming, according to reputable scientists. The signs are clear.

The polar icecaps are melting.

Coastal cities in the United States are increasingly water-soaked because of rising sea levels.

The South Pacific’s Great Barrier Reef will be dead because of increasing seawater temperatures, within decades, according to oceanographers.

National Geographic has published a map showing what might happen if the ice on land melted and drained into the sea, raising it 216 feet and creating new shorelines for our continents and inland seas. My home town of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, now hundreds of miles inland, would be a seaport.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Every one of the past 40 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. 2016 was the hottest year on record. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”

Of course, a few scientifically-trained people claim this is a hoax and simply not true. If we are lucky, they will be right.

What we much ask ourselves is, “Do we feel lucky?”

Well, do we?

I don’t. Those who dispute the findings of the established science community largely serve corporations and industries that stand to increase profits be following a path of not addressing the issue.

We seem to be stuck, moreover, in a paradigm in which our leaders can hold, and act upon, two directly opposing thoughts at once. To wit:

The President of the United States, the leader of the ruling political party, is set to withdraw from a world-wide coalition that exists to address global destruction on the grounds that all this talk about climate change is a hoax. I know I have friends who agree and, trust me, I try to understand.

But. the United States military establishment, in the meantime, is spending millions upon millions of dollars preparing to meet new challenges that will result from climate change. Our president has pledged to provide the military with greater and greater funds, some of which will undoubtedly go to preparing for the changes created by new climate conditions.

As my Hispanic friends would say, “Que?”

I have a term to describe this ability to act upon and support opposing opinions simultaneously. I hope it offends no dear friends. It’s not “covfefe.” I call it: “bipolar-illogic.”

I have some future ocean-front property for sale.

Reconciliation: 25

Regulations derive from laws. I’m not sure a lot of us understand that. For example, regulations involving the protection of the air we breathe are designed to carry out or protect the provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These were signed, respectively, by those famous flaming liberals Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush. As things are progressing, the current leader of their party is not likely to sign any such laws, but that is a story for another day.

The point is, if we deplore regulations, we should go back to the law that spawned them. In our current examples, they were laws designed to protect the air being used to keep humans, including the newborn, alive. If we don’t think that is a worthwhile goal, we simply need to elect politicians who feel the same way.

Oops. Belay my last.

So that is where my friends on the other side of the political spectrum and I must agree to disagree. I stood on the balcony of an apartment in Los Angeles in 1967 and felt my eyes burn to the point of producing tears. I could only wonder what my lungs were thinking. I like clean air. Sorry.

People calling themselves libertarians might say, well just move to a state where they regulate such things as air quality. I’m afraid they fail to understand, among many other things, that the forces of weather and climate neither recognize nor reflect state boundaries. We’re all sort of in this thing together.

So, I respect regulations while realizing that regulators can and do run amok from time to time. Fining a corporation for not painting, “Do not stand here” on the top of a stepladder seems, to me at least, to deny humankind some small measure of hope for improvement to the gene pool. I believe, along with my conservative friends, that regulations should, from time to time, be forced to fight for their lives, so to speak.

That having been said, what concerns me now is the number of mean-spirited laws being passed or proposed at the national level and state levels. These are not laws designed to protect any aspect of health, safety and welfare, but rather to make a statement that we don’t love—in what seems to me to be in direct contradiction to the words and life of The Galilean—everyone around us.

Further, these laws are neither policy-based nor evidence based. For example, some states are rushing to require drug testing for certain recipients of public financial assistant. Not farmers, corporations, churches, or home-mortgage holders, but food stamp recipients, the vast majority of whom are children.

Meanwhile, according to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, in the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.

The fact is that some of the politicians we have elected lately find it nauseous that we, as a society, should assist “the least of those among us.” Go figure.

As regards drug testing, one recent proposal in particular makes me nauseated: a proposal to require the unemployed to submit to drug testing in order to receive benefits for which they are entitled. Yes, I mean unemployment benefits.

Friends, on November 11, 1970, I was honorably discharged from the United States Navy after four years of service. I had no idea when I might find employment because the draft-dodgers had all the good jobs. So, as a matter of precaution, I filed for unemployment. It was one of the most humiliating experiences of my life, not because of any feelings of guilt, but because of the way they treated applicants.

It turns out that I found a job within a couple of weeks. It didn’t pay much to start but it launched me upon a successful career. At any rate, I never needed any unemployment benefits.

I can’t begin to tell you what I would have felt if I had needed unemployment assistance after serving my country for four years—one of which was in a war zone—and some knuckle-dragging, Bible-thumping, mean-spirited sonof …moron had suggested I be drug tested.

Okay, Okay, I’m all right now. I simply want folks to think about what it means to thank someone for their service. Actions do speak louder than words.

    

Reconciliation: 24

Everyone makes decisions. Some are more horrific than others. This month, back in 1944, young men their 20s were facing dreadful choices. Last evening, that came to mind afresh. We watched Twelve O’clock High, the classic Gregory Peck film, and it brought to mind something told me by the late Hal Naylor, a precious friend and hero.

Leaving college during World War Two, Hal became pilot of a B-17 flying from England to Germany before his plane was shot down during, if I recall, something like his sixth mission.

He told me how the young pilots of the squadrons faced one faithful decision even before leaving. They could take off and fly in the opposite direction for some time in order to gain altitude before turning and heading toward the German anti-aircraft emplacements in France. This improved survival odds but expended precious fuel.

Alternatively, they could head straight across the English Channel into enemy fire before gaining relatively safe altitude, but be assured of enough fuel to return to base. In the Eighth Air Force alone, 26,000 did not. Their duty almost rose to the level of suicide missions. I have read where, though they selected volunteers who were small in stature for the job, the space allotted a ball-turret gunner didn’t allow room for a parachute. Hal told me the pilot and co-pilot spaces were so cramped that they tied parachutes to their legs in hopes they could don them if they had to exit.

Decisions. Sometimes I think of the young men and women and the decisions they had to make in those days when I read where modern college students must have “safe places” where they are protected from hearing thoughts and ideas that don’t coincided with their world view. That would probably amaze a nurse who had faced the horrors of medical triage after a battle.

An amazing fact is that, today, less than one-percent of Americans will ever serve in the military. They will never face decisions like having choose between attempting to land a crippled plane and save wounded comrades, or abandoning their craft over the English Channel.

Those who have faced the ultimate sacrifice, those “happy few” as Shakespeare called them, probably have a different view of life because of the experience. The awarding of trophies of excellence to every member of a children’s sports league must seem a little tedious to a “grunt” who had to write that blank check on his life, payable to us, in order to wear the coveted Combat Infantry Badge.

Further, the fact that so few serve, in my opinion, opens all Americans to the danger that we will be drawn into useless wars that will, at first, only affect the children of others. That such adventures may eventually affect us all seems to be lost on so many. If it doesn’t affect me, what do I care? It seems to be more important that I select the best cell phone plan. I read where most of us cannot locate, on a map, the place where the last American soldier died in combat.

Sacrifice? Has it become an obsolete concept? Today we will pay service of some sort to the fallen B-17 crews, along with the sailors, infantry soldiers, medical personnel, and desert fighters who paid the awful prize for serving our country. Will our main decision be what beer to bring to the picnic? A much better decision would be to choose to become aware of the issues facing our great land and to serve, in whatever capacity we can, to solve them.

It should be an honor to serve out country, but any death in a war is a tragedy.

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
- William Shakespeare