Thursday, May 23, 2002
May 17, 2002
RULES
“No holds barred” used to be a term we used to describe a wrestling match in which the usual rules were to be abandoned in favor of “do or die” tactics founded on killer instincts.
We didn’t wrestle that way , ordinarily. We used the term in describing gladiator combats bats in ancient times, but it does seem to apply to modern politics more and more.
Today, even under wartime e conditions, it amazes and disappoints me to see opposition against President George W. Bush - who can only be termed as being largely Democrat” by and large - are using such tactics with greater intensity than ever before.
Leading Democratic party figures are rushing to the forefront these days eager to insult and malign our President at every opportunity - real or imaginary.
At the moment they are emphasizing accounts placed on accusing cussing Bush of knowing “well in advance” of the September 11th attacks that Bin Laden would launch such terrorist attacks against the Pentagon and the Trade Center Towers, and that he did nothing about it after being alerted to such dangers. They do not yet say it in such direct terms but they insinuate situations which accuse the President of gross malfeasance in office. It is being done with deliberate malice and intent and common rules of decency are set aside and not allowed to guide their choice of words.
They suggest that the incident could both have been avoided had the President acted on information given him “when he was on vacation in Texas” - a phrase which is always woven into every news story they spin.
Bush and Republican officials have said that the information received a month before the attacks was general in nature. Based, it is currently said, on a report from one FBI agent in Arizona, it was noted that possibly skyjacking events might occur in the future using personnel he found were being trained at American flight schools. Even as the bombings took place the FBI was investigating the situation of Arabic “students” taking flight training at American flying schools. The report said nothing about time or place for such incidents to occur. The alert did mention Bin Laden’s group which accounts for Bush’s prompt announcement that responsibility had been determined once the bombings had happened. There was certainly not enough evidence available a month before the bombings to merit closing down the entire American airlines system, which seems to be what the opposition thinks should have been done at the time.
Specific aside, the thing we should be concerned about is the fact that, by their conduct, the opposition seem to think they can fight under their own, relaxed rules. The thought that accusations do not need to be true to be used as argument is a dangerous element allowed in such random reasoning.
A.L.M. May 15, 2002 [c480 wds]
May 16, 2002
WHEN THEY LOOK BACK
What will the world think of us?
Our reaction to the shocking events of September 11, 2001, I fear, will seem too severe to many if they are in a mood of being a people facing toward a time of peace and international well-being. The same records of our actions, will seem to have been far too weak for those who think they face a future of war and strife.
Those in the first, or peaceful group will blame us for whatever happens in their time which they cannot control. Those in the second or warlike group, will also point to us and our actions as having caused whatever their troubles might be, too. Neither group will see us in a positive fashion, I fear.
Much of the fear and hatred of the United States which is current around the world today might be eliminated with a conscious effort on our part to be to more honest, above-board or out-going in our various relations with the people involved. How can we expect to develop first-rate friends if we treat them as second rate trade partners, for instance, or as second class citizens in other aspects of life?
It may well be too late to completely erase some of the lasting damage done by our mistakes of the past, so we should not expect one hundred per cent acceptance of anything new we might suggest.
We need to show ourselves as we really are and actively confront the widely exported Hollywood version of America which guides and controls so much of overseas thinking, speaking and writing concerning our way of life.
We have gone so long without sensible control over what we “ship” overseas in the way of esoteric treasures and culture that foreign nationals and many have a wildly imaginative and untrue picture of the in which we live. I was seating an a well-know hotel southwest of London one evening and the “telly” was doing a wild west show from America. A grown man came over to ask me, quite seriously, too: “Is it really like that in Nevada and Wyoming?” He was sincere about it, even concerned. I assured him it was not like that at all, but that it might well have represented life there a hundred years ago and tried to reason with him that the trains were of an ancient design, for example, but I don’t think I convinced him at all. There it was on the screen, not quite as big as life and only half as ugly, perhaps, and he wanted to believe that such a life of carefree abandon to the lusts of life were still possible somewhere. The average person overseas has little idea of the physical size of the United States, just as the average European citizen readily accepts the idea that everyone here lives the versions of American life he sees on the screens.
Our “cultural exchanges” have been woefully inadequate in many ways. We need to approach the problem seriously without simply letting Hollywood and the entertainment agencies re-sell their wares in the foreign markets and to think we are doing a good job in the sheer bulk of our exports.
A.L.M. May 16, 2002
May 15, 2002
A NEW/OLD SAYIN’
“Success Sullies.”
That must be an axiom which is as old as the word “sullies” itself. Certainly it is not a new, untried thought, but it occurred to me yesterday evening (5-14-02) as if I have had just created the juxtaposition of the two words.
“Success Sullies!” It sounds old fashioned enough to be from another era and I am reminded of an old radio friend by the name of Lum Edwards who, as half of the team called “Lum and Abner” used to follow his special words of bucolic wisdom with: “that’s an old ‘Eddard’s sayin’ I jus’ made up.”
Think, for a moment, how it seems to apply so readily to what we call “success” today in both work and play. Just when the peak has been reached, things seem to go awry.
You, no doubt, can recall a business firm which seemed to be prospering and “had it made”. Then, suddenly it seemed as if there was marked downward trend and even ruin. The failure was ascribed to “the economy” - a favorite right now - or, to some other current condition which might have caused an unsteadiness, but some old-timers will say “ it grew too fast”... “poor management”, “too much; too soon”, “poor cash flow” or, speaking more directly ...”success when to his head!”
Success can entail both quantitative and qualitative powers. Great outward progress can be obvious but inner flaws remain secret.
Very often one advancement after another sets a deceptive pattern and preparations must be made for a decline at anytime. The strains of positive achievements can prove to be far too demanding at times and work physical damage upon plans and personnel. Suddenly, what we call success has been clouded by cruel realities we have overlooked in our enjoyment of advancement.
You see evidence of this type of self-destruction in the Entertainment fields as well as in Sports and various business efforts such as the recent flurry of .com failures. Success often invites disaster, and if the failure is not that severe, the placid waters of accomplishment are roiled, sullied, if you will, with the appearance of the sediments of reality.
Success, to be lasting, must be based on sound foundations. We should be aware of this maxim in all we undertake to do. People can, and often are, ruined by success.
A.L.M. May 15, 2002 [c401wds] 1
May 14, 2002
I WANNA BE...
“What do you think I ought to try to be when I grow up?”
I ask small children that question when we are playing some times and they laugh in their light-hearted but quizzical manner as they realize I am kidding ...although a few come up with rather original replies.
It’s a lead in to discussions about what they would like to be when they grow up. Some have pretty firm ideas of what occupational group they’d like to be in, while others, very obviously, have been led to think of such a thing for the first time. A few turn away in disgust and return to their play.
The welcome suggestions. You do so by saying “I wanna be a
carpenter ... and make things....” Someone will take it up at that point with “I’d build a bird house! I’d paint it red and yellow and hang it in a tree... real high up!”
All such proclamations are, of course, said with explanatory marks in place. Enthusiasm runs high for those planning a lifelong career.
Some will show signs of having been coached. “I wanna be a school teacher, a minister, a doctor, or some occupation of that nature, “because, then, I can help other people.” In most such cases you can sense the prior presence of the parental rodent has undertaken to brain-wash the child early in life before he or she has been influenced by other grown ups. Most kids seem to be interested in what happens to Number One; “others” can considered later - much later.
When you insert the sub-question: “Why do you wanna be a..” creative thinking rears its flashing head and some of the replies show specific needs the child has at the moment.
For instance, the little boy or girl who tells me: “I wanna be a truck driver!” and when asked why, he tells me: “’Cause they come home lots more than other Dads do! They can play with us more often and sometimes it goes on for three or four days before he gets to take another ride in his big semi!” What does that suggest about that child’s home life? Does he have a friend or, several friends, with fathers whose father drives big rigs?
Astronauts? No, more often than you might think. Too much smoke, too much noise, too much high-tech palaver. Adventure is tempting, but it wears thin with unearthly speed.
TV in fuels many such choices, I’m sure, but they, too, seem to last for a short time only. So often the majority of children want to be what their Daddy or Mommy happen to be. That’s a positive sign, perhaps, and shows strength of parental ties which are most important. But it can also be replete with some dangers, too, because far too often a child wants to be a brain surgeon because his father is a brain surgeon and the kid has no aptitude whatever for such a specific talent and wastes his entire life trying to be one, because he was never permitted to think of being anything else. That is an extreme illustration, but it shows how parental dominance mighty cause problems later on.
Answer the question yourself: “ What do you wanna be when you ‘grow up’?”
A.L.M. May 14, 2002 [c556wds]
|
