Blog Posts

191 Quasi Random Thoughts During a Pandemic 1

12/2/2020

I keep running across various “pandemic” related stuff in the papers and online which amuse me, so I thought I’d share some of them in this post. A pandemic, of course, isn’t at all funny, but one has to find humor wherever one can these days, or it could drive you crazy. So, here’s a bit of a lighter side to our current situation.

I suspect that this little picture may sum up a lot of people’s thinking about the current state of affairs:

Of course, there are SOME folks (high school upperclassmen, for example,) who figured out that, while COVID wasn’t pleasant, the general situation could be improved through engaging in some (frowned upon, but) traditional practices.

Some of these “students:” even managed to make the needs of “COVID care” work to their advantage in. For example, while studying Hamlet in English class:

This, of course, never would have worked in a class of mine, but I suspect that some of my “students” might have been perfectly happy to try it. Speaking of dramatic lit. class, did you ever stop to think how simply following safe practices might have changed history, even literature. Take, for example Shakespeare’s Tragedies:

Not ALL references to Shakespeare, during these times are quite so pointed, however, as witness what I consider the greatest face mask ever designed:

This, of course, is the time of year which is usually FOOTBALL season. Therefore, it’s the time when the state of Nebraska is determined to indulge in its usual cultish frenzy known as “Husker Mania” in spite of the fact that there is a pandemic raging, and the Nebraska football team has only won ONE of the five games it has actually played (the Big Ten season didn’t actually start until towards the end of October and Nebraska already has had one game cancelled due to COVID). Still, in NEBRASKA, football is THE most important thing there is, of even greater importance than farm subsidies, selling soybeans to China, etc.

Now, I’ve always enjoyed watching football, even served as manager and trainer for my high school’s state winning team. I also have enjoyed watching the cheerleaders (who were friends of mine in high school). On the other hand, I confess that my interest in sports has been reduced by the current pandemic. See Zits below.

We probably should acknowledge that the COVID pandemic is also going to throw some awkwardnesses and difficulties into the holiday season. Think of all those department store/mall Santa Clauses, for example. Their lives are going to be a good deal more complicated during these times.

Also, as any regular reader of these postings would know, I collect various signs and stuff which strike me as amusing. Here’s a pandemically-related one which I found a while back which I just can’t get out of my mind!

Now, YOU try to forget that! It's been an "ear worm" in my head for a couple of weeks.

LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S. This is NOT “pandemically related,” but I found it the other day and was moved to use it. The late Ming Cho Lee, the famous designer and educator, is quoted as having said, “Being polite is the death of theater.” I couldn’t agree more, especially in relation to educational theatre. My way of phrasing it, as some might remember, always was, “If you don’t offend at least some people at least some of the time, you’re just not doing your job.”

0 Comments

190 Thanksgiving 2020

11/18/2020

0 Comments

Well, it’s almost time for Thanksgiving, the holiday when, traditionally, we all get together and engage in the usual family feuds over which football game to watch (assuming there are any this year), who expressed the most obnoxious political opinions at the dinner table, who overate the most, etc. And, when it’s all over, a good time MAY have been had by all (but probably wasn’t). The legend of the “perfect” Thanksgiving was probably portrayed most successfully by Norman Rockwell in 1943. Here’s a copy of his Freedom From Want from his series called The Four Freedoms.

Certainly, this is a very pleasant image, but for many people, that’s all it is.  There are still too many who are hungry and tired and don’t have adequate food, or shelter, let alone sufficient health care, and they are NOT all the “undeserving” poor as some seem to believe.  It MAY be true that the notion of “all men are created equal” is true in the eyes of the law and society, although it doesn’t really seem to work that way if one actually pays attention to the world around us.   One does not have to look very hard to realize that everyone is NOT considered to be of equal value to our society and/or is deserving of fair and equal treatment by all levels of our governments, no matter what we say in our “founding documents.”

The fact that we, as a society, have not always lived up to those ideals and expectations doesn’t alter the fact that we say we are supposed to practice what we preach.  But it IS in our power at least to make some effort in that direction, and that’s what I would wish for at Thanksgiving time.  We SAY that Thanksgiving is all about giving thanks that everyone is free from want, mistreatment, and injustice.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the real case.  Of course, one COULD argue that the whole premise of Thanksgiving has, largely, been pretense since its inception.

The “First” Thanksgiving was a three-day Puritan festival in October of 1621, near the Plymouth colony in Massachusetts.  (That is, unless you accept the idea that it really was in 1607 (or possibly later?) in Virginia, as some Virginians claim.)  In any event, it was a quasi-religious celebration of the fact that some (mostly English) people had lived through crossing the Atlantic to North America; survived here for about a year and felt it necessary to give thanks for that fact.  It is believed that there were 90 “Native Americans,” and 53 surviving colonists present at that “first” Thanksgiving.  The natives were invited because they had provided assistance to the colonists, without which most believe (and believed) they would not have survived.

Now, I have to be grateful for the fact that John Alden and Priscilla Mullins had survived both the crossing and the first year of settlement at Plymouth.  The rest of the Mullins family hadn’t made it and John Alden, who had hired on as a member of the ship’s crew had decided to remain as a colonist.  John and Priscilla eventually married, and I am a descendent of theirs (but that’s a story for another time).  By the way, one of their children, also named John Alden, was accused of witchcraft during the Salem Witch Trial times, a number of years later, but he got away, unlike Martha Carrier, my 8th Great Grandmother, who has hanged during the Salem “Witch” Trials on Aug. 19, 1692.  But I digress, again.

Eventually, with assistance from the local “Native Americans” the colony became established and proceeded to expand into territory which placed it at odds with the “locals” who had helped them survive that first year.  What with the enhanced firepower of European weaponry and the importation of European disease, the impact on those “locals” was devastating, and numerous wars broke out and would become a major portion of the history of colonial (later American) expansion, not just in New England, but throughout the entirety of North America.

Eventually, of course, the “Native Americans” would be confined to inadequate reservations on, generally, poor land and their way of life and languages would be largely destroyed.  Many of those people would be killed by accident, or through the “benevolence” of those of European heritage who felt it was their “right” to dominate them because they (the settlers) were “civilized” (by their standards), “educated” (by their standards), Caucasians of European (dominantly British at first) extraction and, therefore, it was “God’s will” that they run the world as they were superior to others by virtue of their own self-defined superiority.  This “right” also justified the capture and importation of slaves from among the “inferior” peoples of the world to do much of the manual labor which was needed to support the “superior” class.  Since such people weren’t OF that class, they could (and were) merely seen as property, not as “real” people, at all.  It’s important to note that such ideas were not just limited to the southern colonies, as all too many “Yankees” would have you believe today.  No, slaves existed even among the Puritans of New England, at least for a period of time.

Still, I am thankful at Thanksgiving that some of that group of colonists would eventually become “enlightened” enough to wish to throw off the reins of “Royal England” and establish the United States.  (Note: this process is, properly defined as “Treason,” but history is always written by the winners, so we now call it “patriotism” and those people “The Founding Fathers.”)  In doing so, they created some of the most amazingly idealistic and wonderful documents ever conceived, at least in my opinion.  (As literature, I would suggest that they are clearly “Romantic,” although quite early for that movement.) Those documents were an attempt to establish an idealistically democratic system of government of a nature previously unheard of in human history.  They didn’t do too bad a job in writing them, according to their understanding of reality at that time.  And they do read very nicely.

Unfortunately, their notion of reality did not provide for the idea that men who didn’t own property, women, or those humans who were owned as property should have rights, as they were not considered “people” who could be trusted with the rights of citizenship. That exalted rank should be confined to those capable of understand how to use those powers “properly.”  In other words, they were not civilized, educated, male, Caucasians of European extraction.  I confess that I’m not very surprised by this, as that was, in fact, the accepted notion of reality at the time, at least by those with the power to run things.

I hasten to state that I don’t think this is how things should be viewed today, but I also don’t believe that we should discard the good things these people said (or did), because they don’t seem to have held up to be the God-like creatures we have tried to make them into in our American mythology.  No, they were, of course, simply human beings trying to move forward towards what they believed would be a more desirable future for all people, as they understand the concept of “people” to be.  Unfortunately for their memory, the general definition of what constitutes “people” has changed a bit in 200 years.  I don’t think that’s their fault, just the fact that our view of the world has changed, or at least we SAY it has.

My thinking about these things was stimulated by the controversy over the removal of the names of the “great generals of the Confederacy” (which some have referred to as “our heritage”), from military installations and their statues from public parks, etc., because they defended slavery, which most of us now suggest was not a good thing.  I would suggest that removing those names and statues might well be appropriate but doing that is more correctly justified because they committed treason against the United States than just because of their opinions about slavery.  (See Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.)  After all, rightly, or wrongly, slavery was accepted in the original version of the Constitution.  We should not deny the reality of our history, but “honoring” those defined as treasonous to their oath to the Constitution makes no sense whatsoever.

I’m also intrigued by the idea that there are some who say that the “original intent” of the Constitution, applying the understanding of it at the time of its writing, should be honored in all cases.  I find it amusing that some (especially women and Blacks) of those who support this notion would choose to do so, as the “original intent” clearly would not provide for them to be citizens, let alone on the Supreme Court where that idea comes most clearly into play.  That’s an entirely different point, however, as I think even those folks would argue that the definition of Treason is pretty clear.  “Honoring” treason by anyone at any time seems inappropriate, at best.

To get back to Thanksgiving, I’m thankful that we, as a people, are capable of rethinking the ideas of the past and, at least occasionally, modifying our expectations to express our awareness of the idea that reality is not fixed, but can change in response to new (or reexamined) information.  I’m thankful for our Founding Fathers, whatever their faults.  They may not have always lived up to the ideals they espoused by the standards of today, but they expressed them pretty well and gave us something to aim for.  I don’t think we can claim to live up to them completely, ourselves, but I’m thankful that we try.

Even if you are not a devout believer in some external, divine power, however, I think that it’s still wise, every so often, to stop and consider that, as imperfect as the world (and we, its people) is, we have things which we can celebrate and be grateful for: family; friends; pets; life, itself.  COVID-19 may have made things harder at the moment, but all one has to do is to consider that there ARE people trying to make this a better, safer world for all of us to understand that there are things to be thankful for.

So, take a little time during this season, to sit quietly and consider what you can be thankful for.  It’s a pleasant exercise and is probably good for you.

I’m thankful for you.

LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S. Putting your thanks into action by helping to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the destitute isn’t a bad idea as a way to SHOW your thankfulness.  Think about what you can do.  Most of us can do something.

P.P.S. If you can’t do anything else, WEAR A MASK!  I’d prefer that your faith in medical advice from someone with just a B.S. in Econ didn’t cause me, or my loved ones to get sick and, possibly, die.  I will be thankful to you, if you consult with medical personnel.

P.P.P.S. I also feel that I should point out that we should always be thankful for our families and friends.  They may drive us crazy at times, but they are still ours.  See this Dustin strip below:

Happy Thanksgiving! RSB

0 Comments

189 English Language & Grammar Humor 1

11/4/2020

0 Comments

Well, it's OVER!  This election has been VERY difficult for me.  Now the voting is complete, and the counting will soon be and, no matter how it comes out, it's time to get away from the political ads, name-calling and other assorted “whoop-de-doo” so we can focus on sanity and REAL life.  So, here goes....

I suppose that it’s partially inherited from my mother’s father who was a Professor of English, but I have always been interested in the intelligent use of the English language.  Yes, I certainly have used my share of slang and jargon (Jargon: the proper name for the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group).  And, I have been known to use a fairly broad range of vulgarisms during my life. Of course, all of these sorts of things are, in fact, legitimate parts of a language, even if such “special” words may be frowned on by my wife and varying groups of the “language police.”

English is a language with roots which can be traced to much of Northern Europe, France, Rome and a wide variety of Celtic and other influences.  And, I should add, unlike French and some other languages, it has really never been successfully standardized, although people constantly do insist on trying to do so.  (Never completely successfully, I should note.)  Some suggest that this lack of standardization MAY be why it seems well-suited for poetry and other forms of linguistic invention. I think it's also why it is so easy to find (or make up) humor based on the foibles of the language.

I got to thinking about this a few weeks ago when someone sent me some grammatical variations on the classic “A man walked into a bar” jokes.  This led me to look up “language humor” and I found that there is a good deal of it posted out there.  So, I thought I’d share some of what I found. I hope you enjoy it.  Who knows, you might even have some questions regarding some of them.  I’ll admit that I had to think about some.  Still, I think they're amusing, and I hope you will, too.  I've also included some grammar/language cards and signs because I found them funny.

An Oxford comma walks into a bar where it spends the evening watching television getting drunk and smoking cigars.

A dangling participle walks into a bar.  Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.

A bar was walked into by the passive voice.

An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.

Two quotation marks walked into a "bar."

A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.

Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.

A question mark walks into a bar?

A non sequitur walks into a bar.  In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.

Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar.  The bartender says, "Get out -- we don't serve your type."

A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.

Question: Am I the only one who is offended by those tv commercials which feature comments from "Real people, not actors"? I've known a lot of actors in my life and all of them at least seemed to be real people.

At the risk of reverting to "professorial" mode, I include this. I confess that I wish I had found it before I got so involved with editing BFA theses. Had I done so; I would have included this (with a warning) in the syllabus materials for that class.

I do NOT suggest trying to copy this by typing it. Computer “spell-checkers” do NOT like it.

There seems to be quite a lot of folks who have noticed that many people have difficulty with commas, and so they have posted amusing examples. Here are some:

Question: When people talk about “an ask,” is it just a spelling error or is it some other form of ignorance?

One of my watchwords from my paper grading/thesis editing days was:

Then, I saw this Non Sequitur cartoon which I thought funny.

I thought it even funnier when I read one of the comments relating to this cartoon which said: "But they’ll still row, rho, roe at the homonym regatta."

Bonnie and I were watching something on the news recently when the reporter, referring to plans for opening schools, mentioned the idea that the desks needed to be spaced out in the classrooms to avoid spreading COVID. This got us to thinking about how the phrase "spaced out" has recently come to mean something quite different from what it did when we were in college. That amused us a good deal, so I thought I'd include mention of this in this post. Ah, the changes time brings to language.

Here's another example from "Zits:"

Maybe I'll do a post on language humor again sometime. I've found it rather fun. And, we can always use all the humor we can find.

In any event, I'll be back in a couple of weeks....

LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S. I saw this the other day and couldn’t resist. Okay, it COULD be considered political, by those with no sense of humor, but it gave me hysterics!

0 Comments

188 Halloween 2020

10/21/2020

0 Comments

As I've said numerous times in the past, I am VERY fond of Halloween! Okay, that's a mispronunciation of All Hallows Eve, which is the Christian adaptation of the traditional Samhain, but I'm not going to pursue that again this year. See the Archives, if you care. I don't, really. I just love the dressing up, the "trick or treating" with the neighborhood kids, the general sense that there is still fun and "magic" in the world, etc. It is true that the idea that the veil between this world and the next is weak at this time of year makes sense to me, so it's also an appropriate time to remember one's ancestors. But I really don't view this as, essentially, a "religious" festival. I just think it's fun!

Apparently, so does The Wizard of Id:

Still, things being what they are, celebrating Halloween properly at this moment in history was somewhat complicated even before COVID.

Now, of course, we have to be at least somewhat aware of the need for concern over COVID-19. Don't get me wrong! I'm quite supportive of the need for appropriate safety precautions, but I do think that the method demonstrated below MAY be carrying things a bit further than is truly necessary.

While this would appear to be reasonably safe from a COVID point of view, I doubt that OSHA would approve of it without at least eye protection (and probably additional PPE, as well).

Perhaps my fondness for the Harry Potter books, movies, etc., can be at least partially explained by my love of Halloween. And both may (ultimately) be based on my love for theatre. After all, when it comes right down to it, theatre is really all about make believe, dressing up, making things appear to be real when they are not, and moving towards a greater understanding and "truth" in the process. If that ain't magic, I don't know what is. I think that may explain why I meant it when I put this sign up in my scene shop.

Of course, Halloween season is not an exclusively American (or European) based tradition. It is also the time for the "Day of the Dead" (Día de los Muertos) in Mexico. As the population of people of Mexican heritage has grown in the U.S., so has the popularity of this festival, which I think of as somewhat more "religious," but not totally.

When Bonnie and I were in Bloomington, IN, on our trip last November, we had lunch in a Mexican restaurant (Note: Has anybody else noted that such things were quite rare, say, forty years ago? I first remember encountering one in Atlanta in the mid-1970's. Now they are at least as popular as "pizza joints" were in the '60's.) Anyway, as part of the decor at this restaurant, they had this Día de los Muertos "carving" (which may have been molded plastic) on the wall and I just could not resist getting a picture of it.

Of course, you know a celebration has become an accepted part of "American" culture when both Disney and 20th Century Fox make a movie based around this celebration, as both have, in fact, done.

When I got a Target© ad the other day featuring these figurines I found them entertaining.

Then, Bonnie showed this (quite small) statue she had of a figure sewing something on a sewing machine. I thought it seemed perfectly natural for her to have something like this. She has, after all, supplied the entire family with COVID-appropriate masks, in addition to the other sewing she is constantly doing. And, the piece being worked seems about "mask-size."

I confess that I got a kick out of it.  In any case, however you choose to celebrate this season, enjoy it!  Have a good time.  We all need a break every so often and this seems like a good time.

LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S.    By the way, don't forget to celebrate St. Crispin's Day on Oct. 25.  (At least if you are of some English extraction.)  If you don't understand the reference, see Henry V, IV, 3.  Or, you could just look up the battle of Agincourt.

P.P.S. If you have not yet done so, VOTE!  "Time's a wastin'" and, by the time of my next  post, the vosting will be over, and the counting may be.  Do it NOW!

0 Comments

187 Altruism & Politics

10/7/2020

1 Comment

The last couple of posts have been quite heavily politically oriented.  I didn't intend this one to be political, although it seems to have become so as I was writing it.  It's true that it WAS stimulated by a political incident, although I'd intended it to be more philosophical.

Like a lot of people, I watched a good deal of the Democratic National Convention when it was broadcast a while back.  As I did this, I was particularly taken by the speech Jill Biden made about her husband, Joe.  Now one would expect a wife to be supportive of her husband's ambitions, so most of what she said seemed to me to be well-handled, but unsurprising.  However, I was taken by the section where she said, “Four days after Beau’s funeral, I watched Joe shave and put on his suit.  I saw him steel himself in the mirror, take a breath, put his shoulders back, and walk out into a world empty of our son.  He went back to work.  That’s just who he is.”  I must confess that I could identify with Joe at least a little in that description.  While I've never faced anything that devastating, there have been times when I felt I had to force myself to go "back to work."

Dr. Biden went on to describe a number of things she has seen Joe do to help others in their time of trouble and finished by saying she understood why he did such things.  She said, "He does it for you."  This set me back a bit because I didn't believe it.  You see, I really don't believe in what is called "altruism."  That's not to say that I don't understand the idea, or think it would be great if it existed, but I am unable to convince myself that real altruism actually exists.

Now, the dictionary says:

Please do not misunderstand me.  I believe that people sometimes do things which others may consider to be altruistic, I just believe that they do those things, largely, because it gives them a sense of personal satisfaction and accomplishment.  Therefore, they don't do it "for others," they, ultimately, do it for themselves.

I rather like Joe Biden, not because he is "selfless," but because he has made efforts to do things which he felt were for the common good.  I don't expect anyone in politics to do something "for" me, but to do things because they are in a position to make a contribution towards achieving some good, and are willing to expend their time, energy and resources to help accomplish it.  If I benefit from it (whatever it is) that's nice for me.  If not, maybe someone else will benefit more.

In The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein says, "Beware of altruism.  It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil."  What I think he meant by that was that people do things because they want to do them, not because they are against their own self-interest, although it is possible that some of these things may, at least, appear to be so.  I would like to think that it might be because they see themselves as a part of a greater whole and they feel that they will achieve some sense of personal satisfaction by helping to see that certain things get accomplished for the good of everyone.

It comes to my mind that the multi-billionaire, Warren Buffett, has commented that it is ridiculous that he can pay less in taxes than his secretary, due to the way the tax code is written, and he would not be opposed to a revised tax code which required him to pay his "fair share" because he can certainly afford it.  I don't think that's "altruism," so much as an awareness that "fair is fair" and a fair tax code isn't going to make him suffer very much.  My suspicion is that his great emphasis on charitable contributions is, at least in part, based on his recognition that he benefits from an unfair tax code which hurts others., so he can afford to try to do something for others.  Altruism?  Perhaps.  But I'll bet it makes him feel good, too.

While thinking about this, I have done a bit of looking around to see what others have said about altruism and discovered that I am, apparently, not alone in my ideas.  Sri Aurobindo, the Indian philosopher, has been quoted as saying, " Very usually, altruism is only the sublimest form of selfishness."  I think that may capsulize this idea rather well.

Another way of saying what I think is much the same idea comes from Of Human Bondage by W. Somerset Maugham.

I, myself, have done things which some might say were altruistic in their nature.  I remember, back in my very early days at Western, not being overjoyed as I climbed into the old light booth in the Niggli Theatre to run lights for our production of Marat/Sade with a fever of 101 degrees.  I was not happy about being sick, nor about being at work.  But there was no one else available who knew the cues and the show because I had been running the lights for rehearsals and I knew that there wasn't anyone else available to do that job.  And I got a sense of satisfaction in knowing that I had done what I could to make that production a success.

Later in my career, there were many evenings and weekends spent grading Theatre History or Dramatic Lit. papers and tests, or working on editing BFA theses not because I really enjoyed doing that, but because I got some satisfaction from returning the work to the students involved promptly and with my honest evaluation and commentary about the work they had done.  While it rarely was what I would call fun, I felt it was necessary and important, so I made efforts to respond promptly.  And it satisfied my sense of professionalism to do so to the best of my ability.
I could probably come up with other examples, but that isn't the point. The point is that I didn't really do it for my students, I did it because I expected high standards from my students, and I felt they had the right to expect me to hold myself to equally high standards in my evaluation/critique of their work.  If it was important enough for them to do it, it was important enough for me to respond to it promptly and thoroughly.

I am thankful that whatever "sacrifices" I may have made to meet those standards were not, ultimately, all that significant.  Yes, there were occasions when I was unable to do things I might have preferred to do with my family and/or friends, but I knew I wouldn't be happy doing them until I could do them without feeling guilty because I was not getting my job done.  In fact, I probably enjoyed them more when I could relax and do so.

There are, of course, many reasons why political leaders do the various things which they do.  I suspect that a common reason may be because it demonstrates that they are in a position of power and are, therefore, more important than other people.  In simplest terms, it feeds their ego.  I believe that I could come up with many examples of that in the current political situation, but I really don't wish to get into that sort of thing.  The disgrace of the so-called First Presidential Debate has demonstrated what an infantile egomaniac looks like quite well.  We cannot be a nation of "law and order" unless everyone agrees to make at least some effort to abide by the laws, even if we don't like them.  A refusal to offer even a pretense of reasonably civilized behavior along the previously agreed guidelines, as we saw displayed during the first debate, suggests that civilization as we know it is in danger.  And for what?  Because Donald's ego is at stake and he refuses to accept that he isn't entitled to be king?  I can think of no other conclusion.

I don't think that Joe Biden wants to be king.  I believe that he wants to preside over a country which needs renewal, and that he thinks he can contribute to that renewal.  I respect that.  He isn't the total answer and I think he is aware of that.  But, I believe that he will go to work to do what is possible to rebuild our country back into something of which we can be proud again.  To steal a phrase, I think that it's possible that he actually could start to "Make America Great Again!"  Not because it's the "biggest, baddest" bully on the block, but because it's making an effort to reestablish civil relationships with other countries (especially our allies); it's paying attention to the dangers to the climate from unregulated waste and pollution; it's seeing that the United States returns to showing the rest of the world that democracy IS possible and that fascistic dictatorship is NOT the solution; it's being a force for peace throughout the world; and, it's being a force for fairness for all in our society.  I doubt that Joe can accomplish this in a single term, or even two.  But I think that if we let him "go to work," progress will be made.

I'm through.  I know how I'm voting.  My ballot is sitting on my desk right now and it may well be in the hands of my county election commission by the time you read this.  I will not tell you how to vote.  But I WILL encourage you to consider the FACTS, consider your VALUES, and VOTE accordingly!

LLAP

Dr. B

P.S.      Next time I'll get back to my more usual frivolity.  I promise.

P.P.S.   Just to prove that I AM still capable of being frivolous and in honor of my rapidly approaching birthday, I offer this picture.

It was taken on the occasion of my birthday sometime about 2000, or 2001, when my Shop Assistants (Sarah, Serenity, Joe, and Scott [I think it was]) got together with Bonnie and cooked up a delivery of "birthday surprise" cookies which showed up in the scene shop next to the Niggli in middle of the afternoon of the appropriate day. Because of the occasion, I was "required," (by them) to wear this hat and mask (which they got from Susan) to celebrate. (Note: those really ARE my glasses [from the time] which I am wearing over the mask so I could actually see to find the candles.) See, I'm still not too old to be silly, when the situation warrants it!

1 Comment

186 Politics 2

9/23/2020

0 Comments

In my last post, I said that I found some of Mr. Trump's behaviors to make him the less desirable candidate for President in the upcoming election.  This time, I wish to share some additional thoughts relating to the upcoming election.  First, I should point out that I don't believe that Mr. Biden, if elected, would, quickly and easily, resolve all of our difficulties and create the "more perfect union" which we might desire.  But I DO think he might be able to start some movement in that direction.

So, why do I say that?  Do I think that Mr. Biden has all of the answers and will be able to wave some sort of magic wand and resolve all of the differences and difficulties which our country faces?  I don't think so.  Could it be because I'm so committed to the Democratic Party that I believe that only the Democrats can restore America to greatness?  No!  In fact, I suspect that Will Rogers had it right when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party.  I am a Democrat."  It's also true that I really don't buy into the idea which the Republicans have been so anxious to spread that the US has "fallen" from greatness and still has to be "made" great again, by them.  (An obvious admission of their failure to do so in the past four years, which their reigning VP, Mike Pence actually suggested, but that's not the point, either.)

Be that as it may, I think what Will said is true, that it is hard to think of the Democratic Party as being particularly well-organized, so why would I want to be a part of that disorganization?  To be honest, precisely because it IS disorganized!  To me that suggests that the Democrats DON'T all agree with each other and move in some sort of lock step towards a defined utopian future where everyone agrees on everything and we are all likely to die of boredom because we are all just cookie cutter copies of the same sort of thinking.

I LIKE the idea that it's just possible that democracy isn't supposed to be a situation of conformity to the wishes of some sort of "supreme leadership council" (or, Heaven forbid, a "supreme leader") who will lead us to the "glorious future" of world envy, and/or domination.  I find it very hard to accept that much of what has been preached by the current crop of "Trumpublicans" is really what the Founding Fathers intended, or even the Republican Party of the not too distant past envisioned as the destiny of our nation.

Now, the Republicans I remember from a few years ago tended to fit into the general category of what is called "Conservative."  They tended to be anti-union, pro-business, against taxes, for "small" government (keep the government out of my personal business; also known as personal freedom), and (to go back a few years further) to believe that, if there were social problems in the country, the solution was to provide the wealthy with greater wealth and that they would allow/encourage that wealth to work its way down to those of us who might not be as well off.  This was, generally, referred to as "trickle down economics."  They also, generally, supported a policy of not getting the government involved in any form of "social engineering" as school integration, health care, employment, environmental concerns, job safety practices, etc.

Then things started to change.  In order to attract traditionally white southern conservatives to the Republican Party, they created a "Southern Strategy," of attracting southern whites away from the Democrats, in large part by seeking to make laws which were anti-black, and which would appeal to religiously "conservative" ideas.  So, limiting black voter's rights and being anti-choice was good, although the death penalty was still a good idea.  Protecting the "right" of the white "Christian" Church to have significant influence on the political scene was also a part of this strategy, as it provided an excuse to be pro-segregation and to keep those "uppity" folks in their "proper" place.  And, of course, in the process, they were protecting white, male supremacy by attacking efforts to grant women the right to equal pay, fair employment practices, etc.

Still, having lived through those years, I don't remember the changes which the Republicans seemed to desire actually having too much impact.  In fact, the lot of a fair part of the middle and lower classes actually seemed to improve, although mostly in those periods when Democrats were in charge.  (Check the records.)  But even so, I also remember that most of those Republicans did, in fact, seem to think that the political system of argue, debate, and compromise worked reasonably well.  It's true that nobody ever really got everything they wanted (which isn't, necessarily a bad thing) but solutions were reached which did seem to work reasonably well and we did, overall, move in the general direction of resolving some of the issues of civil rights, greater equality, and a general sense that the country was becoming fairer to all than it had been, say, 20-50 years earlier and it seemed that this sort of advancement, while slow, might continue.

Then something changed.  I think the first big change was the Roe v Wade decision.  All of a sudden, the, mostly white, male, politicians (very few of them with a medical background) felt they had lost control over "theirwomenfolk."  After all, if a woman could actually CHOOSE not to have a baby (thereby making them unsuitable for employment outside the home) then men had lost some of their ability to dominate them.  They might actually want jobs and equal pay for equal work and men might have to compete with women and prove the just being male didn't automatically make them better qualified for whatever job they wanted.  So, they started all sorts of actions to say, "Okay, the Courts gave you that right,  but we are going to do all we can to minimize your ability to exercise it."  And they went and tried, and they are still doing so.

Then, to make matters worse, a BLACK guy named Barack Obama was elected to be President, and, with a tiny margin, the Democrats had control of the Congress and were able to start considering social legislation which was, generally, opposed by many "Conservatives."  This led, a couple of years later to a Republican dominated Senate and the expressed desire of Majority leader Mitch McConnell that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  (I certainly can't prove it, but I have always suspected that this attitude had a lot to do with the fact that Obama was an African American.)  I find it quite likely that some folks simply wanted to make sure that no "uppity N*****" was able to succeed as President, especially considering more recent developments.

Most of the next six years were dominated by attempts to "repeal and replace" the healthcare reforms which, in fact, had been legally made law and were, generally, approved of by most Americans.  It is noteworthy, I think, that the Republicans, while anxious to repeal, never actually got around to offering up any sort of replacement.  They still haven't done so, despite many promises to do so.  In fact, I don't think it would be too much to say that, other than trying to abolish the gains of the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans really didn't do much of anything for about six years except to try to stall/defeat ANY action by the Congress, or the President.

Mitch, and the boys, even went so far as to refuse to even consider a nominee for the Supreme Court for over a year because they couldn't stand the idea that they might even consider a person selected by a President not of their Party, "so close to the election."  I think it was at that time that the Republican Party lost me completely, and I think I am justified in my belief that this was not just a political, but a racist action.  It's worth noting that Mitch made a statement within hours of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg that "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate" in spite of the fact that the election will be in six weeks.  And, of course, Donald desires a Senate vote "without delay" proving that neither he nor Mitch are honorable men.  Julius Caesar III,2,52 ff comes immediately to mind to me.

Since I retired, I have been able to follow politics more closely than I had while I was working, and I must say that I have been appalled.  Up until the past few years, while I often didn't agree with the Republican (Conservative) position on many issues, I frequently thought that the points they emphasized were worthy of consideration and were, often, of some value in preventing the Democratic positions (generally more Liberal) from becoming too dominate, which MIGHT be a good thing.

[An aside: When did "liberal" become a pejorative?  I always thought it suggested open-mindedness, tolerance, etc.  Now, many people use it like a curse word.  I've even heard of folks objecting to the idea of a "liberal education." This seems sad to me.

And, by the way, the opposite of "radical," a word Trumpublicans use interchangeably with "liberal," is "reactionary."  "Radical" and "Reactionary" are extremes, as opposed to more "middling" positions of liberality or conservativism.]

To continue, while current Republicans say that they are "Conservative," it seems to me that many of their actions tend more towards "Reactionary" than traditional "conservative" values.  Okay, I understand nostalgia for the "good old days," but I'm afraid that the days of "Leave It to Beaver," "Ozzie and Harriet," or even "Happy Days" are gone and never really existed except on TV.  I don't think that most American women really want to return to the days when they were expected to spend their lives as housewives and mothers, with little opportunity to ever hold a job, except, possibly, as a nurse, schoolteacher, secretary, or waitress.  Even then, of course, the REAL goal, for a woman, was ALWAYS assumed to be marriage and family and taking care of (being dependent on) the "hubby." Anything else, of course made them a "failure as a woman."

I don't think that Black and Brown Americans are likely to be willing to return to segregation and the other, more obvious forms of racism.  There's still plenty of racism around that hasn't been addressed in any meaningful way.  I also doubt that the LGBTQ community is going to happily go back in the "closet."  Nor do I think that many people would be happy to back to a "males only" "Selective Service" process to feed the need of the military.  Do we really want to return to street corner abortions, or "duck and cover" drills in elementary schools?

Whether we like it, or not, the world has changed, and we really can't go back to those days even if we wanted to.  I, for one, don't wish to do so.  Yes, change is hard, but it is a FACT.  Suggesting that we can reestablish those, "wonderful(?)," old days is, in reality, an "alternative fact," that is, an UNtruth.

In the current political climate, we seem to have two, conflicting points of view.  One, represented by a group which claims to be Republicans, but which often displays behaviors and attitudes which tend towards exalting nationalism (and probably race) above the individual; that seems to stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader; and appears to advocate a fairly high degree of economic and social regimentation by an elite class; and the forcible suppression of opposition.  It pains me to point out that these are the definitional characteristics of a political system known as Fascism.  Which leads me to note that it is popular in "Trumpublican" circles to blame demonstrations (even when they can't be stirred up into riots, so that they can be suppressed more authoritatively), as being led by Antifa, which seems to be the current name for them to call anyone who protests anything they don't support.

As I understand it, after some brief research, there is NO specific organization which can be called "Antifa," because it isn't really that organized, as it's even less organized than the Democrats.  About all it seems to stand for is "Anti-Fascism."  Does that mean that the "Trumpublicans," who say they are anti-Antifa (therefore anti-anti-fascist) are actually PRO-fascist?  The use of a double negative in English is usually considered to resolve into a positive.  Oh, well.

To get to the real point of this post.  I've watch Mr. Trump for over four years now as he has lied, name-called, bullied, bragged, ducked responsibility, etc.  I find little to respect there.  On the other hand, I've been aware of Mr. Biden for quite a while, certainly since he ran for Vice President, but even before that, during his tenure in the Senate, which began in 1973 and lasted until 2009.  I didn't know a lot about him, but I did, occasionally hear about something he had done, or a position he supported.  I've recently learned that he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965 from the University of Delaware, with a double major in history and political science and a minor in English, and, later, obtained a Law degree from Syracuse University.  (Remember, Trump's only education culminated with a B.S. degree in Economics.)  I admit to a certain prejudice towards B.A. degrees, but a double major WITH a minor, and then a degree in Law as well.  I find that moderately impressive.  All things considered Joe's educational record seems more impressive than Donald's.

I confess that I have been impressed by Joe's having largely overcome the stutter he had as a child, which I know is a challenge.  I find that making fun of it when it occasionally shows up, as Donald has done, to be offensive and certainly not becoming anyone who wishes to be thought of as a leader.  I never had such a challenge, but I have studied such things just a bit, and have a very modest insight into how challenging it can be.

Joe has also overcome the personal challenge of dealing with the death of his first wife and their daughter shortly after being elected to the Senate and proceeding to serve effectively enough to be reelected multiple times while also raising his two motherless sons.  I find those actions to be signs of strong character, dedication to dealing with adversity, and a willingness to face the future in spite of difficulties.

While I don't agree with everything that Joe has done in his career in the Senate and as Vice President, that doesn't surprise me.  In fact, if I did, it would really surprise me.  What his record tells me, however, is that he is a man who has a record of doing the people's business in a fashion which was good enough to get him reelected six times by his constituents in Delaware.  I doubt that all of those voters always agreed with everything he did, but they trusted him to represent them at least most of the time.

Then, as Vice President, he, apparently, served Mr. Obama well enough to be kept around for a second term and was entrusted with a number of specific tasks for the Obama Administration in addition to his other duties. Perhaps the most valuable insight I have heard about Joe actually comes from President Obama, "The best thing about Joe is that when we get everybody together, he really forces people to think and defend their positions, to look at things from every angle, and that is very valuable for me."  I think that's a great quality for a Vice President, and I think it would be valuable in a President, as well.

So, do I think Joe Biden is perfect?  No!  But we are dealing with a binary choice here.  After all, there may be various other candidates on the ballot, but the Presidency is going to come down to one of two people.  I think my choice is pretty obvious.  I trust Joe Biden to consider the options and make a decision based on the best information available from a variety of sources, especially from those who actually know what they are talking about.  I have enough academic and scientific training to think that it's generally wise to trust the opinions of those who have thoroughly studied whatever problem is under consideration.  I don't think that "trusting your gut" because "I'm so smart" is likely to produce the best possible choices.  Nor is relying on TV pundits instead of seasoned, qualified professionals.

If Biden is elected, do I suspect that I will agree with all of his decisions?  No, but I think he is likely to try to get the best information available, make his decisions based on the advice of knowledgeable people, and give each matter careful thought.  If (when) he makes a mistake, I expect he will admit it and try to rectify the problem he created.  I don't think he will refuse to accept responsibility for it and blame others.  I'm pretty sure that we really can't ask much more of any President.  Except, of course, not to lie to us, because, in his opinion, we "...can't handle the truth."  I think we can handle the truth just fine, it's the lies which we can't (and shouldn't) handle, but I won't go there.

Register & Vote!  Vote EARLY, if possible!  It's important!  It's the essence of democracy.

LLAP

Dr. B

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

191 Quasi Random Thoughts During a Pandemic 1

190 Thanksgiving 2020

189 English Language & Grammar Humor 1

188 Halloween 2020

187 Altruism & Politics

186 Politics 2

Archives

Categories