Where Have You Gone, Robert Young?

May 16, 2012 | america, american ideals

Every nation has a history, and every nation’s history has an era that defines that nation; when the people of that nation think of themselves, that era, that moment of glory is how they identify themselves as a member of that nation. For England, the national glory was during the era of Empire…Queens Elizabeth and Victoria, Francis Drake, India, the Raj…for France, it is Napoleon and when the Arabs think of their ages of glory, it is the Bedouin lifestyle that forms their self-image.

For the United States, the dominant national image was formed during our Westward expansion; when foreigners think of this country, they think of cowboys and Indians…and most of us, today, who grew up during the 1950’s and 1960’s remember cowboy shows…Wyatt Earp, Daniel Boone, Gunsmoke, Dodge City…this image of the brave settler, the noble Marshall, the fierce, noble savage Indian Warrior was a major part of the nation’s psyche for almost a hundred years. Children at the turn of the 20th century snuck behind the barn to read the latest ‘dime novels’ about Buffalo Bill and Calamity Jane.

The unique aspect of the American mythos is its emphasis on goodness. The British Empire had its dark side, Napoleon was a butcher and the Arab Bedouin image is one of lying and deceit, but the American cowboy image was based on honesty, trust and faithfulness. Americans have always seen themselves as good people, moreso than most other cultures. In fact, Americans have often been reviled by the more ‘sophisticated’ Europeans for their naivety, To us it is our strength, to Europe it is our weakness.

One of the most popular American television shows in the 1950’s was “Father Knows Best,” starring Robert Young, Jane Wyman, Elinor Donahue, Billy Grey and Lauren Chapin. This was a show about an idealized 1950 American family; the father was all-knowing, the mother was the perfect housekeeper and the children, while sometimes naughty, tried their best to be good. This television show was an outgrowth of this ‘good’ self-image that Americans believed truly reflected their society. It defined the ideal family for millions of Americans of the time, forming an ideal for which a good part of America strived.

Of course, there were problems with this image. If black people appeared in this show, they were uneducated and stupid. One rarely, if ever, saw a woman professional, and one rarely, if ever, saw anyone who was poor, hungry or needy….this was the major complaint made about the show and, by inference, the image the United States as the 1950’s ended and the children who had grown up under the umbrella of “Father Knows Best” became teenagers and then college students, during the 1960’s. These children began to see a different United States than was presented by Robert Young, and their disillusionment erupted into a massive call for changes in American society, to bring that entire society, not just white middle-class America, in line with the ideal represented by that television show.

So…here we are, 50 years later, and we have, indeed, managed to destroy that image created by ‘Father Knows Best.’ No longer, on the college campuses, are we taught about the basic goodness of the American people…in fact, our college professors, those same children of the 1960’s who were disillusioned by their rude awakening into the real world, now teach new generations that the United States is, indeed, evil. The divorce rate is high, and rising, children raised in a ‘traditional’ two-parent household are actually a small percentage of all children being raised in this country, and we are considering broadening the definition of marriage to include homosexuals and other ‘alternative’ forms of relationships.

Was the United States ever as good as portrayed on “Father Knows Best?” Of course not. The incidence of spousal abuse, child abuse and childhood indifference was probably as high at that time as it is now; we just know more about it, now. At that time, no one talked about it.

Is the United States as evil as portrayed on many college campuses today? Of course we are not. We, as a nation composed of mortal human beings, have done bad things in our past; we have kept African slaves, we did attempt genocide against the American Indian, our treatment of other ethnic groups was not sterling, and we denied women, for many years, their full potential. In the context of the 16th-19th century, our record on all of the above was little different than the record of other ‘civilized nations, no worse, no better…the difference is, we have learned, and tried to make amends. There are few, if any, nations with our record of public service, volunteerism and help for those with whom we have come in contact. We are, basically, a good nation, one that strives, even without thinking about it, to meet the standards set by the Anderson family in “Father Knows Best.”

It is time we stopped beating ourselves up. Not only are we a good people, but, also, a major part of the rest of the world (outside Europe, which still has not forgiven us for becoming more important than they are) looks to our goodness as a guide for how a nation should conduct itself. We ARE the example of how a modern democracy should function, and we should start thinking and acting like an example.The world depends on us for many things, and we cannot let THEM down by having doubts about ourselves.

In that light, I call upon Americans to think of “Father Knows Best,” again, in light of our present day reality. The reality of that show was not a bad reality. The wife prided herself on being a good wife, the father was a kind and patient father, and the children looked up to their parents and took council from them.  Our pendulum has swung far too far; our present-day teenagers are worried about sexually transmitted diseases, drugs and alcohol are rampant in the schools, and we are discussing the dissolution of the institution of marriage. Enough already!

Programs and movements are not the answer; individuals have to look up and take stock of their belief system. People must learn to ‘do the right thing’. If your gut tells you that what you are doing is wrong, then don’t do it. Don’t drive your cars too fast, don’t be mean to other people, don’t disobey the law…do your best to be an example of how a good person should lead their lives…lead by example, NOT because you want to go to heaven, or want to please others, but because being good is the right thing to do. It makes you feel better, and makes others feel better.

Be a good person. If we all tried our hardest to be good people, our nation would be a better place.

Bookmark and Share

Are You A Datasexual?

April 22, 2012 | america

Two very interesting articles crossed my computer screen recently.

You’ve heard of people being asexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, metrosexual… how about datasexual?

A Huffington Post story says you’re a datasexual if you have an obsession with your personal data.

You know the type: people who can’t sneeze without telling the world on Facebook, who photograph everything and share the pictures with everyone, who tweet more than they eat.

Datasexuals are creating and sharing massive amounts personal data online and on their mobile devices

And then there is this:

Kopimism, a Swedish religion professing that people should be free to copy and distribute all information, regardless of copyright or trademarks, has landed on America’s shores — much like a marauding pirate ship, according to a report by U.S. News.

An American branch of the religion, which has been formally recognized by the Swedish government and has congregations in18 countries, has registered with Illinois and is filing for federal recognition, according to Christopher Carmean, a 25-year-old student at the University of Chicago and head of the first U.S. cell.

 “Data is what we are made of, data is what defines our life, and data is how we express ourselves,” Carmean tells U.S. News. “Forms of copying, remixing, and sharing enhance the quality of life for all who have access to them. Attempts to hinder sharing are antithetical to our data-driven existence.” 

My question is, are these just fads, or indicators of the future? As we see the internet and computers more and more integrate into our lives, will our religions and our personal habits be more and more defined by our relationship with information sharing? Are we seeing the beginning of a time when people have computer chips inserted into their nervous system and becoming more or less a data point in a world that is always, intimately, connected with everything and everyone else?

And what happens to our family pets, then? Hmmm…

Bookmark and Share

Obama’s Stunning Ignorance of Constitutional Law

April 5, 2012 | obama

James Taranto raises some interesting questions with respect to the President’s supposed Harvard credentials:

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday’s comments: “Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?”

Obama’s answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and “as a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.” He went on to talk at some length about the “human element”–that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend “a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.”

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: “Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

Now, the President has claimed he was a professor of Constitutional Law at Chicago School of Law, yet he presents no proof. We have no writings of his that were generated at that time, and no testimonials to his efficacy as a lecturer or his knowledge of the Constitution…so what WAS Obama doing there? The school says he taught three lectures a week…but on what did he lecture?

He obviously has gaps in his knowledge of the law. Either it does not take much to be a lecturer at the Chicago School of Law, or Obama was practising his usual trick of getting appointed or elected to a position, and then using his charm to keep that position.

 

Bookmark and Share

The State of the Union

April 4, 2012 | budget, economy, healthcare

Yuval Nevin writes, in National review:

 On February 16, at a hearing of the House Budget Committee, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was asked by committee chairman Paul Ryan to describe the administration’s plans for addressing the mounting risk of a debt crisis. His reply was: “We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

 Today’s presidential speech to the annual Associated Press Luncheon was basically just a long, dishonest way of saying the same astonishingly irresponsible thing. In essence, the president argued that our country’s future depends on allowing our government to grow uncontrollably, and that any attempt to restrain its growth and to keep the size of government in relation to the economy where it was during the fifty years preceding his election would be heartless and irresponsible. Keeping that growth in check—not reversing it, mind you, but allowing the government to grow only about as quickly as the economy does—would, we are told, subject our nation to unimaginable horrors. If all of Ryan’s cuts in the growth of spending were “applied evenly,” the president argued, then:

 The President’s depiction of Mr. Ryan, the wonkish and formerly obscure House Budget Chairman, as some political monster is itself telling. Mr. Obama is conceding that he can’t run on the economic recovery, the stimulus, health care, green energy or any of the other grand liberal ambitions that have dominated his time in office. All of those are unpopular or failures. He was elected on hope and change, but now his only hope is to change the subject to the ogres he claims are the disloyal opposition. The President’s own budget was voted down unanimous by Congress, 415-0, Harry Reid in the Senate has no budget of his own to propose, the Congress has not approved a budget for over two years, and yet he presumes to lecture the Republicans over budgetary affairs. The deficits and unfunded liabilities now stretch out before us for as far as the eye can see (and beyond). Unless we arrive at some sort of new social model (fast), the next generation will be paying confiscatory taxes with drastically reduced services, all to insure that baby-boomers waddling around in their “golden years” get free health care and COLA-ed pension checks. The war against arithmetic is also a war against the young.

The President has wasted his political capital on political gamesmanship. Instead of addressing the economy, he spent a year and a half working on the so-called “Affordable Care Act,” spending lavishly on so-called stimulus money, bailed out failing car companies and plowing billions into speculative ‘green’ ventures, all of which have failed.

There is no choice in the next election. No matter what one’s political leanings are, we cannot continue this way, with a President who blames everyone but himself for his problems.

Bookmark and Share

Cain at Gettysburg

March 17, 2012 | america, Civil War, history

I am reading a lot about Gettysburg, lately, having finished Stephen Sears’ excellent history of the battle, and Harry Pfanz’s “Gettysburg, the First day,” a well-written, detailed and valuable history of the first day of the battle. I was going to re-read Pfanz’s book on the second day, but I noticed a new book, on the market, “Cain at Gettysburg,” by Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, a well-known military commentator and author; a fictional account of the Battle, it looks good, and I will probably get it. I always like to read books by active duty soldiers; you can’t get closer to the front than this

“A great retelling of the Battle of Gettysburg, Cain had my complete attention. Ralph Peters challenges the notion that everything that can be written about this battle has been. His approach is fresh, original, and outstanding in every respect.” —General Sid Shachnow, U.S. Army Special Forces (ret.)

What fascinates me, though, is how Gettysburg still knocks out the books; Sears’ and Pfanz’s books were written within the past few decades, and Newt Gingrich wrote a superb alternative history of the Battle also within the past decades. Despite the hundreds of books written on the battle since 1863, new and exciting books are still coming out on a regular basis. One wonders when it will stop…there is something about that battle grips people’s imaginations. I can’t explain what it is.

For those who want to immerse themselves in the battle, here are a few of the best books on the subject;

“The Gettysburg Campaign,” Edward Coddington – Not about the battle but about the campaign leading up to it.

“Gettysburg” – Stephen Sears – Well written, readable and detailed history of the entire battle.

“Gettysburg, the First Day,” Gettysburg, the Second Day,” “Gettysburg, Culps’s Hill and Cemetery Hill,” – Harry Pfanz – Well written, readable and detailed history of each day of the battle, for those who love intimate details of every aspect of the battle.

“Gettysburg,” – Newt Gingrich and William Fortschen. – One of the controversies of the battle is why it was fought at all; The Union had a superb defensive position, and Lee’s Lieutenant, James Longstreet, said, “if the enemy is still there, it is because he WANTS us to attack him.” Longstreet wanted to move around the flank. Gingrich covers this alternate possibility; what might have happened had Lee actually done this. It is very believable, and quite good as a novel, also.

Bookmark and Share

The Administration Finding it Harder to Hide its Radical Roots and Agenda

March 15, 2012 | america, american ideals, election, obama

The Obama narrative is beginning to fall apart. While the administration desperately attempts to cover up the President’s radical past, so the American public will not notice his radical present, more and more mainstream Americans are asking, “why are Obama’s handlers so desperately trying to hide Obama’s past.

 The “Investor’s Business Daily,” not a radical, birther organization, but a staid journal more often involved in the intricacies of business and investment, asks just that question:

 The Beltway elite mock critics who say the president’s hiding his radical past from voters. They say there’s nothing there, move along. But if there’s nothing to hide, why is so much hidden?

And if the White House isn’t worried about the public seeing another side of President Obama, why is it trying to reinforce the image of him as a post-racial, pro-American moderate with a slick new Hollywood-produced 17-minute documentary?

The answer, of course, is that it is very much concerned.

The Obama campaign knows its carefully manicured narrative is wearing thin against the drip-drip-drip of revelations about his extremism. And it can’t risk the incumbent being reintroduced to voters this election as an untrustworthy imposter who’s hiding things about himself and his agenda.

Indeed, these are things that must be hidden from the average voter. They are unpatriotic and unelectable things. Things that would concern any red-blooded American, if not the parlor Bolsheviks inside the Beltway media and the Ivory Tower.

The videotape of Obama praising and hugging his America-bashing, Constitution-trashing law professor Derrick Bell isn’t the only evidence that’s been hidden from the public. A 1998 video of Obama praising the late Marxist agitator Saul “The Red” Alinsky alongside a panel of hard-coreChicagocommunists also exists. Yet it, too, has been withheld.

So has a 2003 video of Obama speaking at a Chicagodinner held in honor of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Anger atIsraelandU.S.foreign policy were expressed during the private banquet.

Why have Obama’s remarks and actions during the controversial event been suppressed? Perhaps it’s because the radical Khalidi — a close friend and neighbor of Obama, who held a 2000 political fundraiser in his home for him — has strongly defended the use of violence by Palestinians against Israel, while expressing clearly anti-American views.

Meanwhile, the administration finds itself mired in a war in Afghanistanthat is beyond its ability to understand. Signs of disintegration are multiplying; the Secretary of Defense orders Marines to disarm before he will talk to him…did he REALLY think someone would shoot him? He might not be too far from the truth; Michael Yon, an experienced reporter who has been imbedded in Afghanistan since the beginning says that Yon warned about the possibility of troop morale decline in Afghanistan: in an article for the English magazine Daily Mail about the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a mentally disturbed Marine, he wrote, the Murders in Afghanistan were all too predictable:”

The mass murder inAfghanistanwas predictable. Twice in the past three weeks, I published that it was coming. Why was I able to write this with sad confidence? I’ve spent more time with combat troops in these wars than any other writer: about four years in total in country, and three with combat troops

“As the prevalence of insider attacks rises, and we lose more troops to Afghan troops going berserk and murdering our people, it’s likely just a matter of time before aU.S.troop or troops turn the table and intentionally slaughter Afghan forces.

“That could lead to a meltdown. We are at risk of losing control of more than some people might imagine. There is only so much thatU.S.forces will put up with before fringeU.S.combat troops start taking matters into their own hands. Believe me.”

There is little that can be done until November…but those Conservatives who suggest they are not going to bother to vote because they do not like any of the Republican choices need to reconsider their position. Another four years of this radical progressive administration in the White House can finish us as a Republic. Even IF the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, the President has his finger on our foreign policy, and the damage he can do is immense.

Bookmark and Share

Catching Pigs

March 13, 2012 | america

This has been around awhile but good stories can be retold to advantage.

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.

The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist regime.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said that it was no joke “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.”

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Bookmark and Share

Getting Back On That Horse; The Argument For Forging Ahead

February 1, 2012 | america, democracy

 There is a stretch of land, in Western Oklahoma called the ‘Staked Planes,” or, in the original, Plano Estacado. It was supposedly named by the Spanish Explorer, Cortez, because it was so incredibly flat that he had to mark his route with stakes so he could get back…and, in fact, if you drive across the Oklahoma Panhandle, you can’t miss this land feature…or lack of feature, as the case may be. Before I knew what it was called, I drove across this part of the country, and it was one of the most depressing drives I ever had, mile after mile of emptiness, like crossing the ocean, but without waves to break up the monotony. I couldn’t wait to get over it, to the other side.

I knew a woman, once, who felt the need to take her horse across the country. She started out in Missouri, and planned to spend a half a year riding to California, where she lived. She described the trip in glowing terms, except for the point where she hit the staked plains. Here, she became overwhelmed with the sheer emptiness of it all and, at one point, decided she couldn’t go on any further. She got off her of horse, and sat down, and waited…and waited. Finally, she realized that giving up was not an option, because the only choice that left her was to die, so she got back on her horse and finished that trip.

That is the problem with giving up. There is really no place else to go, and the alternative is often far more drastic than simply going on, no matter what the difficulty, and giving up negates the possibility that better things can happen. The woman, mentioned above, got over her hurdle on the Staked Planes and had a wonderful trip afterwards, that she would have missed if she had decided to give up when things got hard.

We often reach that point in our lives, where everything seems just too hard to go on, and where it seems easier to achieve the peace of eternal sleep, or other simpler alternatives. In truth, in many cases, it is hard to argue with someone that this might be true, especially someone for whom the pain seems to never end. Some of us are born into a life that is far harder than anyone to have to bear, and no one is really in a position to judge that life; the ability of each of us to weather pain is different, and some of us are simply not as strong, brave or fearless as others. My only point is that giving up removes the possibility of things getting better…and if the Universe has some eternal plan for you, perhaps those hard times are in preparation for something better. You’ll never know.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookmark and Share

Why We Lose Wars

December 24, 2011 | america, war

Reprinted from Dec 2009, as it is still relevant two years later

We have had a sorry record with respect to war since the end of World War II. We have not won a single conflict in which we have engaged, major or minor. This is not a slam on our troops; we have won virtually every battle we have fought, whether it be Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, as well as all the minor conflicts in between. Our army is demonstrably the best there is in the world. We have not won the conflicts, however. Korea is still a flash point. In Vietnam we retreated in an inglorious fashion. We conducted a brilliant campaign in Desert Storm, and then had to go back eight years later to do the job over again. We conducted brilliant campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we are still fighting there, five years later.

What is wrong? Why can we not seem to finish what we start? Why do we end, but not win our conflicts? They all boil down to the same basic principle. In order to win, one must want to win. One must have the will to win, and the will to do what one must do in order to win. One cannot win, if one does not define the meaning of victory, and maintain that definition to the end. Napoleon had a maxim; “if you set out to take Vienna, then take Vienna”. A corollary to that is that if one sets out to take Vienna, ensure that one does, indeed, want to and need to take Vienna, and that one is willing to pay the cost to do so. Articulating a goal, without understanding the full implications of achieving that goal is as worthless as not attempting that goal in the first place. The United States has lacked that will to win that would make the best use of our military superiority. We are afraid of conflict.

Conflict is as much a part of our natural world as is the weather. Every endeavor we attempt involves conflict of some sort, whether it be competition in the business world, competition between nations over resources, individual attempts to rise in the world of corporate life or two football teams attempting to achieve victory over each other on the field of sports. Few of us would deny that such conflict exists, but there has risen, at least in the American nation, a general distaste at the very idea of conflict. It is considered to be a fault in human nature that one person should triumph, while another should fail, or that one company or nation should triumph over their competition. Despite the evidence that conflict, indeed, benefits a society, by forcing it to extend itself beyond what it thinks possible, our schools outlaw such competitive games such as tag, and conflict resolution and ‘peace studies’ abound at Universities, while military history is rarely taught.

A United Nations body of experts has recently denied that war is essential to man’s nature, as an array of sociologists adds that we have no innate aggression in our genes. Sociologists and political scientists favor international conferences and peacekeepers in lieu of U.S. aircraft carriers and Special Forces. Such faith accordingly argues that military investment is unessential, and so defense spending is reluctantly agreed to only when there are immediate adversaries on the horizon. Those who argue in favor of military preparedness are labeled warmonger, peace is considered to be the natural order of man, war an aberration, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookmark and Share

Ann Bassett Manuscript Found

December 15, 2011 | American West

One of the heartbreaking things about being me is that those things which really get me excited make everyone in the world’s eyes glaze over if i try to explain to them about it…and this is one of those things. Having no one to talk to about this, I am sharing this with you guys…(sigh).

If you remember, a year or so ago I was writing about a woman, Ann Bassett (and here), the “Queen of Cattle Rustlers.” She was the lover of Butch Cassidy, and accompanied them to Uruguay, under the name of “Etta Place.” She fought the cattle barons in Northern Colorado, shooting and rustling their cattle to stop their encroachments on the land of the small farmers…there is a picture of her standing next to Pancho Villa, with bandoliers over her shoulder. She was a VERY exciting woman, who led a very exciting life…

WELL, the exciting part is that I just received a copy of her autobiography, the culmination of a two year search….she wrote about her life and published it, but it sort of disappeared in history. I found a copy! Probably only one of two copies that exist…I am SO excited I can’t stand myself…

I just don’t know what to do about it. I’d love to publish it, but I doubt if anyone cares…and it isn’t very long. I probably will scan it onto my blog (http://amberandchaos.com/tp) and that will be it…I find that tragic. She is a woman of legend, and I would have loved to see her life in a movie…my dream is to visit the region where she lived, which is SO isolated that one needs to bring one’s own gas…Northwestrn corner of Colorado…Brown’s Settlement…the end of the “outlaw trail.”

Bookmark and Share