Honor Bound

What is honor? How do we define it? More importantly, perhaps, is how do we practice or hold it? According to one of the many versions of Webster’s, honor is “high regard or respect, glory, fame, good reputation, or adherence to principles considered right, integrity.” Most of us seem capable of recognizing honor when we witness it, and fewer of us appear equipped to routinely practice it. For many, an honorable person is one who is worthy of praise, but for some, a person of honor deserves derision for being so “old fashioned and hidebound.” In a sense I believe that the latter view is the most prevalent in our nation today.

People of true character and honor often intimidate others. The light of their rectitude casts shadows on their peers. As a nation we have cherished our honorable heroes although there has been a cottage industry of historians who have tried to crumble their feet of clay. The difficulty with praising or admiring a person of honor is that we are not privy to their innermost thoughts, their daily actions or their unguarded moments. Honorable people might not always be honorable. Just as brave people are identified during times of stress and danger, honorable people should be measured by their commitment to principle when the opposition is the greatest. Bullies are not honorable, but when the moment arrives, they can be. Cowards are generally unworthy of honor, but if they rise to face the foe courageously, they can acquire honor. If one does one’s duty, is it honorable, or must one perform an extraordinary act of valor?

This column was germinated because of the resignation of a football coach. Not a President, nor a military leader or a prominent legislator….a football coach. A man whom I respect has resigned under a cloud of suspicion. I’ve always believed him to be an honorable person…a man of high principle and integrity. Some rules were broken by a few of his players, and he supposedly failed to report the infractions to his supervisors. Pundits and other players have speculated that he was seeking to protect the wayward players from “facing the music,” but the deeds were discovered, the story was transmitted far and wide, and the coach must now take the hit. The players, thus far, have been levied a five game suspension for their misdeeds. The coach resigned because of his apparent cover-up. Ever since Watergate we’ve been told that the cover-up is greater than the original transgression. In a sense that may be true. Clearly, breaking additional laws or rules should compound the penalty, but prosecutors, persecutors and pundits too often appear to ignore the guilty rabbit in order to chase the fresh scent.

In some situations the leader who risks his reputation for his squad would be lauded. The dynamic changes however when the squad is composed of young men with a sense of entitlement who have no financial resources. The scenario becomes murky, then dark when an infraction of a rule is hidden to save the images of the players….and perhaps the coach. A similar action by the coach in a different context would be praised as an act of honor. This time the act has been condemned, and the coach has left a post that he cherished. The line between honor and disgrace is a very thin one.

Just as the revisionist historians demean our heroes and deflate their reputations, so too will the story of the coach and his cover-up be written in tabloid fashion. History is never perfect because history cannot be precisely written. When eye witnesses disagree about a recent event, how can we expect the historian to “get it right” after time has passed? Will the coach’s honor be restored or upheld at some later date by a friendly author? No, because we rightfully distrust the accuracy of authors, historians and politicians. The coach’s legacy has been chiseled into the stone of memories. I continue to believe that he is an honorable man. I do not question his integrity. He made the wrong decision, and he and his reputation will forever be tainted.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Half Mast

Begin with the following:

C:\Users\Charlie\Videos\RealPlayer Downloads\Taps, 21 Gun Salute   Present Arms Salute.flv

When warriors fall in battle, they fight for many reasons. To defend their families, to defeat invaders, to advance a principle, for love of nation are but a few of the sentiments that motivate people to volunteer for military service.

Today, I will acknowledge those who died in the nation’s undeclared wars and conflicts since 1946. Congress last declared war on December 8, 1941 for the duration of World War II.

United States Military fatal casualties.

Korea: 54,246

Vietnam: 58,253

Desert Storm: 269

Somalia: 18

Afghanistan: 1595*

Iraq: 4454*

*= through May 11, 2011.

..\..\Videos\RealPlayer Downloads\American Soldier Remember Me. by Jaden Bliss.flv

Please remember to give them and those who preceded them a moment of silence today. After all, they’ve given their “forever” for you.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Friday Fish Fry

Fish on Friday

Today we are featuring a little lighthearted political analysis. By using several species of North American fish we’ll attempt to describe some of the partisan players in the current political scene. On a “scale” of one to two, this column is probably a one.

Generic Identifications:

Blowfish: The prime identifier for all career politicians, aka the ruling elites.

Sucker: Universal fish-type definition for citizens who continue to support and elect career politicians.

Largemouth Bass: Identifies all politicians who covet face time and airtime, and believe that they have something worthwhile to communicate.

Grouper: A class of voter that refuses to engage in individual thought. They prefer to follow the group. They usually choose to vote for “winners” even if their candidate has no scruples, no principles or no integrity. They often are highly partisan Kool-Aid drinkers. Another class of grouper is the “swing voter.” They generally lack conviction and tend to vote en masse for the front runner.

Eel: another identifier for career politicians. Slippery and elusive could describe the eel and the pols who refuse to serve us, but want us to obey and serve them.

Republican Fish:

Jelly Fish: Do I have to explain this? Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and a host of others, too many to name. These folks have an amazing capacity for quivering when resolve is needed….for caving when commitment is necessary, and for stammering stupidly when an issue or a policy must be clearly articulated.

Flounder: Whenever a Republican encounters something that requires a principled stand, they squirm and flounder. This fish is an apt descriptor for the great GOP initiatives to restore Constitutional government, limit federal spending, and downsize the federal monstrosity. They founder, flounder and flail…only to ultimately fail.

Great White Shark: Sharks eat the little fish, and the Republicans consume their supporters. They use their energy, their money and their hopes then burn them again and again. The Great White was chosen for the GOP because African Americans routinely give 90-95% of their votes to the Democrats.

Yellow Perch: In addition to the color reference about the line down the back of most GOP politicians, the perch is where you’ll find them as they wait for public opinion to consolidate before taking a somewhat, almost gelatinous position on an issue involving principle. As they squat on their perches testing the wind and reading the polls, they continue to pronounce their amazement and dissatisfaction with how the “other party” has gone about capturing the talking points. The longer the yellow-spined GOP spends on their perches, the more irrelevant they become.

Democratic Fish:

Hammerhead Shark: This shark, too, eats the little critters, but as the name implies, is too hard headed to see reality when it appears. This species continues to consume the nation’s resources without any honest consideration for the future.

Crappie: Descriptive term for most Democrat programs. Massive spending, minimal results but with the expansion of the dependency class and the bureaucracy as primary goals. This fish can also be used to illustrate most of the rhetoric from Democrats and their leaders.

Flathead Catfish: As in the catfish that swallowed the canary. Democrats traditionally act as if they know something that the rest of us do not. Their heads are flat because they pound them against the wall of real life. Democrats are smug and stupid.

Bullhead: I feel somewhat guilty attributing this fish to Democrats alone because any non-wavering partisan could qualify. Democrats earned the honor because of their unwavering devotion to big government even as we are swimming toward disaster. I grudgingly admire their commitment, but absolutely loathe their programs and their philosophy.

Summary:

Fish stink when they rot.

Comments:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Baseless Empire

According to an article in Global Research by Professor Jules Dufour, the United States has a vast worldwide network of military bases. In the year 2007 there were 737 foreign-based U.S. military installations scattered around the globe. It should be noted that number does not include super, ultra, highly classified secret bases that are undoubtedly located near potential adversaries and notorious hot spots. The site claimed that there were 255,065 military personnel deployed in off shore posts in 2007. The identified bases contain 845,441 buildings and cover more than 30 million acres. These bases, these deployments and their requisite equipment inventories are not cheap. The critical question is: are these bases absolutely necessary for the defense of our nation? Does our national interest justify these costs? Do these bases, if not vital, provide a strategic or social advantage for our country? And…if these bases are important for local or regional purposes, why not have the host country pay the costs associated with our protecting them? It would be the military version of “rent-a-cop.”

In my view, many of these bases may be superfluous, but I am not a military or logistics expert. On the other hand, if the host nations were to absorb the costs for deployment, it could result in a win-win for all parties. Our budgetary shortfalls would receive some relief from the payments, and our presence in those many nations would not be considered so “imperial.” Our military function would be similar to one of an independent contractor for the host. Chain of command and mission issues might arise, though, and could compromise the financial relationship. As an example, assume we had a garrison in the Dominican Republic and they were paying its costs, but our leaders believed that those troops were needed in Haiti on a short-term mission for whatever reason. How would the costs be allocated? What input would the Dominican Republic military and political leadership have in the decision for deployment? What if there were disagreements between our leaders and the host nation? These questions (and more) illustrate that the rent a troop model may not be workable.

The bottom line for our nation is: do we absolutely need all these bases and their associated native resentments to assure our national security? It seems reasonable that given our advanced technology and the superiority of our personnel and equipment, we can maintain an effective response and deterrence with fewer foreign bases. We will save valuable resources…financial, people and equipment and perhaps generate some goodwill. Frankly, the good will issue is a nonentity for me because there are too many other extraneous factors that determine our standing in the world. Closing several or many bases around the planet may have little impact on our global image. The Constitution requires the federal government to protect and defend the nation…despite what other nations, groups or cells may think of us. The Constitution does NOT require an international network of bases and troops to project an image of power. The Constitution does NOT require several hundred garrisons around the world to provide command opportunities for hundreds of professional officers.

We can reduce our global footprint, maintain our national security, and perhaps, engender some tiny element of goodwill by pursuing an intelligent and fiscally responsible policy for locating and supporting military bases. We need not become an isolationist “fortress America” to follow a reasonable policy. Dismantling some of our militaristic empire-building superstructure need not damage our safety. Our budgetary priorities are so distorted that we must begin with military excesses as we whittle the entitlement monster down to non-existence. The time has come to slaughter all the sacred cows of our bloated, ineffective, inefficient and unconstitutional federal government.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

The Mouse and the Elephant

Ohio Senate Bill 148 passed on a party line vote. Twenty three Republicans decided to restrict voters’ choices in future elections and ten Democrats voted against the bill for a variety of reasons…primarily because the early voting window was narrowed. Third party candidates must gather an extraordinary number of signatures to qualify for the Ohio ballot. Usually because most third party candidates and supporters have real jobs and are not full-time career politicians, outside professional petitioners must be hired to accumulate the necessary signatures. In the realm of hardball politics, time and money are precious commodities. If the third party candidates do manage to attain ballot access, they have already expended an inordinate amount of physical and financial capital. The mouse must scuff and scurry to get in the game because the cowardly elephant is afraid of the smaller creature. It should be noted that the elephant is typically a gelding until it is time to intimidate the mouse.

In past years I rode the elephant as it studiously looked after its own interests while stomping on the little folks as it made its way across the land. The elephant entered into a pact with the donkey whereby whenever either of them became too afraid of the little folk, they would band together to isolate the diminutive ones until the supremacy of the pachyderm and ass could be assured. The elephant and the ass direct themselves according to two prime principles: survival and power. For the two self-serving critters all other principles and values are mere baggage. Sometimes the donkey brazenly brays his misbegotten disdain for standards of constitutional conformity and simple liberty, but the elephant never fails to laud the ideals of freedom, frugality, and fundamental principles. The ass is stupid, and the elephant lies.

Now comes the mouse to claim his place among society’s critters. A modest creature the mouse desires to live in a land of principles and liberty. He wishes that the other critters would allow him to be what he is…a mouse, but they insist on making him conform to their preferences. The donkey and the elephant assume that because of their large sizes, they have the power to force the other animals to do it their way. So, the two grey beasts trumpet and bray to intimidate the others. They change the rules so frequently that the other creatures are constantly hustling to conform. They conspire to make life difficult for all the other creatures of the Creator’s world. In extreme cases when they feel threatened, the elephant and the donkey do not allow the others to roam the wildlife sanctuary. They force the other creatures to roam outside on the periphery of the society.

Whenever the mouse can find an opening into the center of it all, he is amazed at the elephant’s reaction. The massive animal cowers in the corner and refuses to engage the mouse in any meaningful way. The mouse is puzzled by the elephant’s over reactive, cowardly behavior. After all, the elephant professes to share many of the mouse’s values about how the wildlife area should be governed. Why is he so afraid? The donkey runs away when the mouse appears, and the mouse is mystified because the donkey claims to believe that the animal kingdom should not require everyone to behave the same.

It was a moment of epiphany for the tiny rodent. The legal and regulatory mistreatment that he suffered because of collusion between the donkey and the elephant (who was the primary abuser) was a mere symptom of their fear and inadequacy. They were afraid that the mouse would live according to his principles, and they could not tolerate the comparative scrutiny. If the mouse were to assume a role of leadership within the animal sanctuary, the elephant and the donkey would be exposed as dishonest frauds. It wasn’t really the mouse that the elephant feared. It was the little critter’s integrity that made the elephant tremble. The donkey is always stupid.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Pay Attention

An article in the Monday Toledo Blade (D 1) has spawned this column. As you may know, a portion of my profligate past was spent as a college teacher. For approximately 15 years at three different schools I taught Mass Communication and Journalism courses. Over the years I had an opportunity to interact with thousands of students from the early 1990’s through 2005. Throughout the course of my teaching career I noted that an increasing number of students requested special consideration for exam taking. Those students would have a permission form signed by either the campus health service or the tutorial program. Once, after receiving an inordinate number of special allowance requests, I stood before my class of roughly 220 students and gave a short lecture on the dangers of Ritalin. Following the class a sweet demure young lady told me that I had offended her because she had been on Ritalin for several years. At the next meeting of the class I asked how many of those attending were on or had ever taken Ritalin. Fully 60% of the hands were raised. My first thought was “huh?” My second thought was “what the hell is going on?”

Back in the ancient days when I was young, we had hyperactive kids who wouldn’t pay attention in class. We called them “ornery.” They were occasionally disruptive, but no more so than some of the rest of us who liked to stir the pot. Some of the restless ones did “OK” academically, and others struggled to advance through the grade levels designed by the government school. They did not, however, consume quantities of artificial compound behavior control drugs in order to provide a docile compliant classroom for the public union teacher to manage. My peers managed to graduate from the government monopoly school with most of their brain cells intact and unaltered. Most of the ornery types became solid citizens, and a couple of them were very successful entrepreneurs. The alarming rate with which we medicate our children alarms me. We appear to be discarding knowledge about long-term consequences for questionable short-term benefits.

There are some questions that I believe should be answered for a medical layperson like me. Aren’t there any natural alternatives to Ritalin? Are the medical community and the government school monopoly in the pocket of Big Pharma? Are the physicians and educators anti-natural treatments? Why do so many of our children require medicating? Is ADD or ADHD that prevalent? If so, why? Too much TV? Video games? Lousy diets? Chemical poisoning? Mutant genes? Teachers who are too lazy to deal with the active exuberance of youth? It seems to me that if we have so many of our children with attention and hyperactivity problems, there must be a root cause that should be addressed. It cannot be good for a nation to have so many of its youth medicated to allow for orderly interaction. Given the state of the nation today, young people may need hyperactivity to earn enough to pay their extreme taxes in the decades ahead.

It may be that our young people require medication because their abilities to focus and control their energy may be short-circuited by angst and contradiction. On the one hand government, advertising, schools, parents, D.A.R.E. officers and counselors continually warn the young people about the dangers of drugs, and then prescribe medications for every ill…real and imaginary. The psychological term is cognitive dissonance. It arises when one holds contradictory ideas. So, it would appear that each day our youth are encouraged to take their medications and their dissonance with a glass of water. Our obsession with finding the instant cure or magic bullet for every issue that confounds us has been manifested in our treatment of our children. We look to government to resolve every petty issue in our lives, and we expect medical and other experts to correct all our other perceived deficiencies. Until we begin to accept personal responsibility and develop problem solving skills, we’ll be dedicated to instant medication. The side effects, the after effects or the hangover could doom us all.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com