Reflections on the Recent Election

     Pundits and prognosticators all over the media  are wringing their hands over the miraculous election of Donald Trump, projecting doom and gloom and everything else from a financial meltdown to a nuclear holocaust. In among all these rants some truths have peeked out, and I would like to share some of them.  First, due to the existence of the Electoral College, America is the only country in the world where the president is accountable to all the voters, not just those who voted for him.  In the voting process, the Electoral College functions much like the Senate does in the legislative process: it gives equal, or nearly equal, weight to each state, regardless of population size. Second, America is not, and never has been, a true democracy; we are a representative republic, where senators and representatives do the actual legislating for us. Throughout our governing process there are checks and balances built in, so that no one person or group can easily gain too much power.  This last item has become somewhat problematic, especially during Mr. Obama's administration, with the unchecked growth in the use of Executive Orders by the president, which at least temporarily by-passes the need to get congressional approval in the form of legislation.  The down-side of this is that Executive Orders can be eliminated instantly by the next president, wiping out any gains made by the  previous one. I suspect that Mr. Obama may live to regret taking this short-term approach to implementing his agenda, in that Mr. Trump, when president, can and probably will eliminate many if not most of  his predecessor's orders. I also believe that one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton did not win, in spite of the apparent popularity of Mr. Obama, is that his policies did not please any group except his core base of socialist-leaning voters, most of whom live in the larger urban areas of the country.  From a population standpoint, more people in the urban areas appear to want these socialist policies, but from a country-wide standpoint, most of the people outside of the urban areas did not want any part of the agenda, which is why Trump won 31 states in the Electoral College while Mrs. Clinton only won 19. The real problem has been a suppression of real diversity, the diversity of thought. The people in power and the media who support them have pushed the idea that only one side is right, labeling anyone who disagrees with them as racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, misogynists or just plain stupid, none of which is true, and none of which helps to have a true dialog related to identifying and solving the nation's problems. So Mr. Trump won.  The media still doesn't seem to be listening, but I hope the people still do.

Attic Treasures and Reflections on a Former President

Whenever I finish one of these posts, I tell myself that I am going to be much more diligent about writing my thoughts down.  Then time goes by and I realize suddenly that days or weeks have gone by and my blog has remained empty.  No wonder practically no one follows this.  Oh, well, it's OK.  To those few who do, I say "Thank you" really gratefully for sticking with me and checking back occasionally. On to my entry:

When we moved back to Connecticut from California, we had with us many, many boxes, some of which have never been opened.  They were put in the attic until we needed them, and eventually were forgotten as more recent items that needed to be saved were put in the attic in front of them. Now that we are getting old, I decided that it was time to clean out the attic before we get too feeble to climb the pull-down stairs that lead to it. So far, I have gone through about a half-dozen boxes and gotten rid of most of their contents, mainly consisting of old books and magazines, but the latest box contained pictures in frames and other breakable stuff that was wrapped in old newspapers dating back to 1978, which is when we started packing for the move in early 1979.  This particular wrapping paper was a copy of the Sacramento Union dated December 10, 1978, and the top-of-the-fold headline read "Nixon Flattened, but no 10-Count". The Nixon referred to in the headline was Richard M. Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, who might have gone down in history as one of the greatest presidents, had it not been for a little scandal called Watergate, which resulted in a choice of removal by impeachment or voluntary resignation less than two years after the start of his second term.  He chose resignation, and left office in August of 1974. Interestingly, the House Judiciary Committee at the time had used charges of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and refusal to honor the committee's subpoenas as justification for recommending impeachment, all of which in some form or other could also be applied to Mr. Obama, yet no one in this Congress has had the courage to pursue an impeachment charge here. I wonder why? Anyway, four years later, Nixon was still a big deal, so I opened the yellowed pages carefully and read the article.  In it, Mr. Nixon stated the following to the reporter:

"If a leader doesn't stand up on a great issue, he's not going to be great.  If he does stand up, he will be controversial.  The mark of leadership is not how a leader can take a popular position and ride with it, like a poll or congressional sentiment.  The real test is to take the unpopular position, if he thinks it is right, and make it popular."  Nixon was pretty good at this until he was derailed by Watergate.

The article was very long, and covered a variety of issues besides Watergate, including issues of the day on which he commented.  Among the views that he held were that the balance-of-power strategy was still the best way to deal with the Soviet Union (now Russia), and that without our military superiority the Soviets would otherwise take advantage of American weaknesses to engage in "adventurous policies" that could result in America suffering a defeat without actual warfare; a bad agreement (like the SALT agreement at the time) is worse than no agreement at all;  the Soviets must be kept out of the Middle East at all cost; Israel must be kept strong enough to defend itself; the US should remain friendly with Israel's Arab neighbors so that the Soviets can't move in, and Egypt's president at the time, Anwar Sadat, must be kept in power as a guarantee of future stability in the region (Israel and Egypt had signed a non-aggression treaty sometime during Nixon's presidency, I think) . Almost forty years later, those policies are essentially still valid, although they have been egregiously dismissed by our present administration, with disastrous results, as we all now know.

 Nixon was also clear-eyed about the complications inherent  in supporting allies who don't engage in the same level of human rights as we do, citing Saudi Arabia and South Vietnam as examples of this dichotomy and laying out exactly what the conflicting ideologies were in each one.  He maintained that keeping them as allies could take precedence over differences in human rights issues, even as we recognize and publicly disagree with those differences. That he had an unsurpassed understanding of politics and especially international relations was never questioned even by his adversaries, according to the article.  It's too bad that he got it so wrong on Watergate.  History may still redeem him, or at least put his accomplishments in perspective. I think I hope that happens. I also think I will save this article and the newspaper in which it was written.

To Ask or Not to Ask

Labor Day Weekend is coming up in a few days. In most families, this is a time for gathering together for the last cook-out (unless you live in a year-round warm climate) before Autumn and falling leaves.  In my family, there seems to be no awareness of this activity unless I invite my kids to come.  Actually, this seems to be the case for all holidays.  Since the demise of the grandparents, it seems that family time is just not a priority with my kids, with the possible exception of Ryan.  Labor Day is no different.  As usual, I had to ask Kevin if he and Julia would be able to come down for any part of the weekend, but they said no, they had other plans.  Ryan and Katharine accepted the invitation and said they had Sunday available, so we will have the cook-out then. Ryan does better than the other two at keeping in touch: he lives in town and checks in several times a week.  I just realized that I didn't even ask Jenny, and realized further that if I had, she probably would have declined as well. It's an all-day drive from Virginia.  I might have thought to ask her if she had contacted us any time in the last few weeks, but I guess she's too busy to think of her parents. In my fantasy, it is my kids who are asking us if we want to get together with them for a holiday before they make other plans, not us always asking them. Maybe they don't think that family gatherings at any time other than Thanksgiving or Christmas are important. They are wrong. It hurts to be so ignored by them.

 

Gay or Transgender - That is the Question

OK, here's a question to ponder: what is the difference between a homosexual male and a transgender male? Suppose, for instance, that you're a male who is sexually attracted to males, rather than females.  How do you know whether you are a homosexual male, or a female trapped in a male body, given that gender identification is now determined solely by one's own feelings, rather than by one's anatomical make-up? Suppose you're a woman who is attracted to other women, rather than other men: How do you know that you are really a woman having feelings for another woman, or a man trapped in a woman's body having feelings for another woman? What if Psychology has been wrong all along, and there is really no such thing as actual "homosexuality": that what has been called sexual orientation is really gender orientation? It would explain why there are so many gays and lesbians who demonstrate personality characteristics or preferences associated with the opposite gender.  Even if this were true, combining homosexuals and transgenders would still only affect less than two percent of the population according to most measurements, but in a country of 300+ million that would be about six million people-certainly a sizable number. Geneticists seem to be finding genes for everything else, perhaps they will eventually find the gene that determines sexuality and sexual orientation.  That would really be a breakthrough, don't you think?

Media Bias

In yesterday's Hartford Courant, there were eleven editorials in the Commentary section, seven of which involved national politics.  Of those seven, four were attacking Trump. The others dealt with ObamaCare and its different potential futures, why Governor Molloy might not be the best person to stump for Hillary, and one lone piece laying out the many reasons why the writer would be voting for Trump.  Additionally, there were five political cartoons (six if you count the weekly Caption Contest), three of which (four if you count the Caption Contest winner) were anti-Trump. Even in the hard news section, there was only one overtly political story, and that one dealt with Trump's allegedly falling poll numbers.  All week there has been an endless reliving of Trump's verbal gaffs, while there has been no reporting about Hillary's email problems, or her continued attempts to deny that she did anything wrong, in spite of the FBI Director's assertion that she did. She cast aspersions on the families of the Benghazi massacre and indicated that they were either lying or delusional for saying that she blames a video for the deaths, yet there has been no mention of that, but Trump defending himself against the callous remarks by the Muslim Gold Star father has been all over the news for days. Personally, I'm not as concerned with what either of them say except as their remarks relate to their actions.  So far I have not seen or heard that Trump is anything but a successful business owner who has made a positive impact on cities across the country and the world, while Mrs. Clinton has accomplished nothing positive to show for all her experience. The Hartford Courant isn't even a major national newspaper, but it still reads like a Democratic mouthpiece. Of course, this is Connecticut, one of the bluest states in the nation, and also one of the most poorly run, with an economy and a tax base in shambles. I wonder if there is any connection?

Why We Can't Compromise on Gun Control - or anything else, for that matter.

Artificial flowers on an artificial tree

The candle is real

It seems that in our society today there is not much chance of compromise, mainly because there are competing philosophies that are diametrically opposed to each other. For instance, regarding gun control, if you are a person who believes in taking personal responsibility for your actions, then you believe that people kill people.The killer is the target of your anger, and the one who should be punished. You know that there will always be people who do bad things, and you want to make it harder for them to do too much damage. You believe in punishing those who do wrong, but not at the expense of law-abiding people who never have, and never would, commit a violent crime with a gun. You believe that if there are enough good people armed and ready to defend themselves, their family and/or their attackers, then the damage will be less, and the killer will more quickly be captured or killed. An example of this in Europe is the legal drinking age in Ireland, which is 18.  There are no restrictions on buying or drinking alcohol at that age, but if you get caught driving or committing any crime while intoxicated, the penalties are severe. People in America who believe similarly believe that there should be few restrictions on gun ownership, but if you commit a crime with a gun, the punishment should likewise be severe.

On the other hand, if you are a person who does not  believe in taking responsibility for your actions, then you believe that guns kill people, that people only commit these crimes because they have easy access to guns, if they couldn't get their hands on a gun then they would not be able to commit these crimes, and the only way to lessen the damage in this instance is to severely restrict who can buy or own a gun, and what kind they can own. In your ideal world, the Second Amendment is a real impediment in your desire to ban guns altogether, as is the case in many European countries, so you espouse workarounds like background checks, limiting magazine rounds, banning certain types of guns, etc.. You believe that if no one had guns, then no one could get killed by guns. The problem with this theory is that history had shown that (1),the bad guys will always be able to get guns, and (2), even if they can't get guns,  they will always find another way to carry out their crimes, as with knives or bombs, or planes or cars. Maybe we should ban planes and  cars,  too.

Then there's abortion.  If you believe that all life is precious, then you are against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and capital punishment.  If you believe that only some lives are precious, then you are probably not against any of the above, or you may support abortion while being against the death penalty - choose the applicable combination.

Both of these examples boil down to an emerging war between religious and secular beliefs in this country which, up until recently, were much more in sync with each other than they are now. The code of behavior ascribed to us by our various religions is now very different to that which is granted by the secular society. I believe that this divergence is at the core of why compromise is not possible: people trying to stay true to their religious beliefs cannot in good conscience agree to actions which those religious teachings deem to be wrong, while people who have little or no particular religious beliefs believe that everyone must accept and adhere to the definitions of permissible behavior deemed by the secular government to be right.  It is at the point where Hillary Clinton herself was recently quoted as advocating that religion must be eliminated from the discussion. I don't know how or when this will be resolved, but sooner or later, those who have sought to silence the opposition will push too far, and there will be a great push-back.  Maybe that time is coming. We live in hope.

Thinking and Writing Are Two Different Animals

                ( A beautifully lit staircase in a hotel in St. Louis. I went there in early May.)

I don't know why it always takes me so long to add a post to this blog: I started it originally because I thought I always had something that I wanted to get off my chest, and wanted someplace to get it out there. Turns out I really don't have that much to say, and when I do think of something that I want to write about, I don't have the time to do it right then, and eventually forget what it was that I wanted to express. I haven't added to this blog in over two months. I will have to do better. Until next time....

On Being Shallow, Part Two

Well, I checked my Facebook page yesterday morning, and found that my daughter had indeed posted a nice acknowledgement to me late on Mother's Day night. I thought I should feel guilty for casting aspersions on my children earlier, but I actually felt relieved, and a little curious.  It's almost as if Jenny, at least, might be reading my blog posts, although I'm pretty sure that none of my kids even knows I have one. In any case, my bruised ego has been assuaged, and I take back everything I said about my allegedly ungrateful children. I was just in a bad mood. There is both pain and joy in loving. On Sunday I was feeling the pain; today I feel the joy.

On Being Shallow and Petty

I have a Facebook page that I sometimes post comments on. As of now I have more than 150 friends connected to me on Facebook.  Most of them are either mothers themselves or have mothers, and many of them posted lovely comments to and/or about their mothers on this Mother's Day.  I put a remembrance about my mother, and even got likes and comments in return. Most of my relatives acknowledged it, but not my children. Not one of my children posted anything about having a Happy Mother's Day to me. Fortunately, I have a very loving daughter-in-law who was the only one to recognize me on Facebook. I am feeling sorry for myself, I know that, but it doesn't do one thing to make me feel any better. My children are the reason I joined Facebook in the first place: Jenny said it was the only way to know what they were doing, as they didn't call much.  My cousin Annie also supported the idea.  I don't know why this means so much to me - it seems so petty on the surface - but nevertheless it stings a lot not to be recognized on Facebook by my kids. I'm just feeling sorry for myself, but it hurts to have done so much and made so many sacrifices for my children, and not have any of that acknowledged. I never got a mention on my birthday, either.  Somehow it has become important to me that my children post a Facebook message to me or about me on my birthday, or Mother's Day, or other holiday, like so many other children do.  Stupid, I know. Selfish, too. Shallow, even. After all, they did call.  Kevin has never been great about family connections anyway, so I wouldn't expect him to make a fuss on Facebook. Ryan and Jenny have their reasons, I guess. Love hurts.

The Assault on the American Economy: a Dearth of Education

Why isn't economics taught in high schools any more? It seems from the news about protesters and government regulations running amok and the vilification of business, casting the capital system as the villain in the income inequality wars, that no one understands the basic rules of economics: first, that companies create jobs and employ workers; second, that workers and companies pay taxes to the government; and third, the government needs taxes in order to provide for the common good, as required by our Constitution. It seems logical to assume that the more companies there are and the more jobs there are,then the more tax revenue the government receives, especially if companies are allowed to grow unchained by so many crushing rules and regulations that only the largest can afford to survive. If we want companies to remain in the US, we have to give them incentive to do so. Why is "profitability" such a dirty word in politics?  The screamers in this country are beginning to sound more and more like members of the Proletariat of the Communist Era. This is truly frightening, and our government seems to be either the perpetrator or a willing participant in this delusion. In a truly free-market society, wealth is not finite, and anyone can create wealth, given the tools and incentive to do so. Anyone who has studied economics knows that the Free-Market System of Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and created more wealth for more people than any other economic or political system in the history of the world. It may not be perfect, but financially it is way ahead of whatever is in second place. In a truly free-market environment, anyone can have a local tag sale and not have to pay the city for a permit to do it; the kids running their lemonade stand don't have to notify the Department of Public Health before they open; and the farmer who just wants to sell his home-grown vegetables and fruits to the poor people in the city doesn't have to worry about being fined or jailed because his vegetable cart is not allowed on city streets. Income Inequality is a false argument, as the discussion should be about how much a given JOB is worth, not how much a worker is worth. Any job that requires little or no skill should be worth an amount of pay relative to the number of people who could perform that job. The more skills and/or education and/or experience a job requires, the fewer people there are to perform them, and therefore the higher the pay should be. In the simplest of terms, this is how the system should work, and as people develop more skills, education or experience, they should be able to move into higher-paying jobs. Of course, in a real economics class, this lesson would be the first minute of the first day of a semester- or year-long course, as there really is much more to the subject, but perhaps you get the idea. For the record, I live in Connecticut, which by all financial measures is one of the worst-run states in the country, with a deficit presently in the tens of millions and growing rapidly.  Companies are leaving regularly, including high-profile ones like GE and Pfizer, leading to less revenue for the state, more people left behind and on unemployment, creating more expense for the same state that is losing jobs because of all the regulations meant, ironically, to "protect" the workers from the big, bad businesses. Where is the logic in this?

Family Distances

I haven't heard from my daughter in weeks. In fact, I can't remember when the last time was that we had an actual conversation. It doesn't help that she lives in Virginia, a nine-hour trip by car from here. I miss her. It's not that we were ever close, exactly, except for the period of time when she was involved with Adam- we talked almost every day during the planning of the wedding, and before that at least twice a week- it's just that not talking at all has created a rising wall between us that will continue to grow as long as she fails to make contact. I have no idea if her divorce is final yet, or if her new boyfriend, Thomas, is living with her, or if his divorce is final yet, or if her other friends know about him yet, or if she and Adam have had any conversations or encounters since he moved out, or if she ever told Adam that the reason she wanted the divorce in the first place was because she met her soul-mate in the desert and therefore did not love Adam any more.

 I don't call her because I don't have anything to say to her, and I don't feel that I should be the one to ask for answers to these questions. She is the one who should have things to tell us, but she is apparently not of the opinion that information like this should be shared with one's family. I see her Facebook posts and have a general idea of what she thinks is important, and can infer her other choices from the things that are not mentioned in her posts, like anything about Thomas, for example, but that is no substitute for really talking things out and clearing the air.  We are the ones who have been excruciatingly hurt by her recent decisions, and yet she does not want to accept that these things need to be resolved by her, not by us. She absolves herself from accepting any responsibility for fixing the situation by believing that "Mom and Dad hate me" (she and Ryan had a conversation about that, according to him), and, I guess, is just waiting for us to get over it. Not so easy when we have no communication with her. 

I have not seen her since the trip to Spain in October; she opted not to come home for any of the Holidays, preferring to spend them with Thomas rather than us. There used to be a saying that a relationship is good if it makes you a better person. Jenny's new relationship has made her into someone I don't even know, and can't imagine even wanting to know, but I will have to get to know her anyway, if she is to remain as a welcome member of the family.  I just don't know how to do that, given the present situation. Maybe this, too, shall pass. I really hope so.

                                                    

A Spiritual Reflection

     At its most fundamental level, Christianity mandates that we renounce all worldly possessions and follow Jesus' example - be like Him in every action we take.  In reality, most of us can't do that.  The few who do are eventually recognized as saints, and are regularly credited with earthly "miracles" (in quotation marks for those who don't believe) after they die.  They are honored as having special connections to God and can help us to be heard.  St. Anthony of Padua is one such saint whose many miracles have earned him the title of Finder of Lost Things.  He has been my go-to prayer resource whenever I have lost or misplaced my cell phone, camera, keys, important papers and such, and has rarely, if ever, let me down. Recently, however, in utter despair over the relentless bad luck my youngest son has suffered since losing his job a year ago, I cried out loudly to St. Anthony for something else.  My prayer was simple: "Dear St. Anthony, my son has lost his job; please help him to find another one ." Amazingly, the next day my son got a phone call from someone who had found his resume online and told him she thought he might be a good fit for the company she worked for.  Over the next week he went through a lengthy interview process for the job, along with, apparently, 25 others, and was one of only two people actually hired.  He started yesterday. He is hopeful again.
     I can hear you skeptics out there thinking this is all superstition and coincidence. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but my experience tells me it isn't. Thank you, Saint Anthony, for answering my prayer.

Three Perceptions of God

   I have been meditating a lot lately on the interpretations of God through the ages, and their impact on today's world. I have been reading the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, and the Koran. The God of Abraham revealed Himself to Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad, or so the stories go. The God of Moses handed down the Ten Commandments, which have been the hallmark of Man's relationship to both Man and God: He told us to respect and honor the one true universal being; do not murder, steal, lie, envy things held by others, or commit adultery; and respect our parents.  The God of Jesus told us who would be blessed (the Beatitudes) and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us (the Golden Rule). But the God of Mohammad tells us that those who say that God had a son are liars (Sura 18) and infidels who should be killed (Sura 47), and states that the purpose of the Koran is to "announce and warn" (Sura 18). There is much about the Koran that seems violent and intolerant, and I wonder why it is such a popular religion. I also wonder why our politicians call it a religion of peace. I wonder how many of them have read the Koran of which they so persuasively speak? It may be a religion of peace if you are Muslim, but it seems decidedly dangerous to be an unbeliever - an "infidel". 

  The Old Testament of the Bible is essentially a history of how God's relationship to Man began and developed.  As such, it certainly contains its own aspects of violence, but not in such a way that it seems that God is advocating for violence. In the New Testament, Jesus preaches only tolerance and patience, adherence to the laws of the Fathers in the Old Testament, and love for all. He never advocates violence as a solution to anything. On the contrary, He admonishes us to "turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:29).  The God of Moses and Jesus follow as one, but the God of Mohammad has completely different characteristics. The book ascribed to that God does not advocate tolerance, but unconditional, unquestioning, universal acceptance of its tenets, without exception. This is not religion, it is slavery.