phaedo2000.com Blog

Through the years I have noticed the increase of innuendo, that is accusations often without proof: one’s word against an other’s.  It has always been scary, but has become even more so, for several reasons.

First is law suits.  Anyone can hire a lawyer and sue, for almost anything, and successful results benefit both lawyer and accuser; I wonder how many are initiated by aggressive lawyers.  Yes, we have a law now that allows judges to throw out trivial law suits; have any been thrown out?  Perhaps judges are afraid of powerfully funded lawyers too.  Then there is communications, all kinds of communications, including unattributable emails and email forwards.  Our lust for scandal is legendary.  Finally, it has become a fairly effective way to take out an opponent.  Does it work?  Oh, yes, precisely because of the other two.  Law suits, incidentally, are a double edged sword, triple edged actually; the cost of hiring a lawyer to defend; the possibility of a large judgment, even if innocent; and and the lasting effect of the innuendo, regardless of the result.  As I said, we love scandals, and often prefer to remember the accusation rather than the result.  Everyone knows about MacDonald’s and the spilled hot coffee law suit; how many remember that it was overturned on appeal?  Perception, after all, is 90% of the game (I made up that statistic; statistics are useful tools as well, no end of what you can prove with them, even if they are made up).

Where will this end?  I don’t think it will.  It certainly is not in the lawyers’ interest for it to end; it’s too lucrative.  And for accusers it works.  So what would end it?  A flash of morality?  Right; don’t hold your breath.

Water this time, and do I have an investment idea.  Here it is.

We buy up some land on the gulf coast – pretty sorry lot there anyway; shouldn’t cost too much.  Then we build a water treatment plant and a solar energy plant to go with it; maybe even a little wave energy as well.  And when it’s all ready to go we start with the pipelines to pipe water into the drought regions in Texas north and we can start buying that land up now too; this drought will be with us for awhile – not continuously, but off and on the need is sure going to be there.  And we convert salt water to fresh water, using solar energy, and pump it north to distribution areas for farmers – and cities too.  Can’t miss.

Cost?  Well, it’s not profitable at the moment, but, hey, water has got to get more expensive, even without a drought.  I used to say a couple of billion or so, but that was before; now a trillion or two?  Time; well, that’s hard to say; we’d probably lose money for a couple of years; ten or twenty maybe?  maybe a little longer.  But there is going to be a time when water is going to be profitable, and right now the land it cheap, and building costs are certainly not what they will be when it reaches profitability.  How can we miss?  Maybe even a little government subsidy to tide us over.

So it might take a little while.  But we need to get in at the bottom, right?  So we’ll be ready when the time comes.  I wonder why someone hasn’t thought of that before.

I would be the first to say that one has to be very careful of what is read and believed.  The Media’s stock in trade (due to consumer demand) is sensationalism, and they do – and must (to survive) strive for it.  The Blogosphere also adds an entirely new dimension to that to which we are exposed, and most of it is opinion; facts are in short supply and suspect for several reasons: experienced foreign correspondents are becoming fewer as Media struggles to survive, knowing that American readers place domestic affairs (and particularly those that affect them) first; there are a great number of contributors who use the same published facts to form their opinions that may or may not be well-informed; and contributors seem to be more and more biased and less and less in-depth informed.  Thus there is a great deal of information floating about that is questionable at best.

I might add to that that Media’s need to produce something every day (or these days even more often than that), and with TV in sound bite incriments, reduce the time for researching and editing, resulting in information that is likely to be more threatening than is often the case.  And may make it seem that things are more volatile than they are.  Every violent item that comes from almost anywhere is treated as breaking news.  How much of that is and should be treated as routine?  More than we might think.  Violence in the world is nothing new and if each item is internalized as imminently important and critical to affairs either of domestic or foreign one quickly reaches overload.  The world is not coming apart at the seams and is not about to explode or implode as some would have us believe.

Having said that, we are facing difficult times and have every right to be concerned and reason to be seeking to know what might affect us personally.  It is well known that the major cause of self-destruction is panic; man is not likely to be rational when he feels personally threatened.  Yet when he feels personally threatened he is prone to panic.  And it is easy for that panic to seem like or even become a form of anarchy.  Furthermore, like it or not, there are forces out there ready, able and willing to employ such apparent anarchy for their own benefits.  And there are others that are ready, willing and able to use our freedoms – even one as sacred as rule of law – against us; and they are apparently doing so.  Often we seem at war with ourselves and have a difficult time determining who the enemy is, particularly as propagandists of all ilks attempt to lead us, for their own purposes, selfish or otherwise to a conclusion of their choosing.

Reading extensively and carefully , and sorting through the words and ideas being flung around is important, but how many of us have the time and background to do that effectively?  But doing so to the extent we can is all we have.  Check sources, know where different contributors are coming from (Google can help a lot), and weigh the words with as much care as possible for not only content but slant; much fed to us is slanted for effect.  But we must also be prepared to face difficulties as they occur and to understand them and their implications – without going off the deep end, as so many today are encouraging us to do.  We have strong institutions as well as dedicated individuals that must be trusted and supported; and we must work together to help each other.  America is still America, and something of which we can be proud, even if there are elements that inspire us otherwise.

All easy to say and not necessarily easy to do.  The challenge is to recognize the threat and be prepared to deal with it, without allowing ourselves to be panicked – to think through what we are being told and remember that it is the human tendency to think things are worse than they are.  But at the same time we are seeing a tendency, most evident among the entitled young, to either ignore or demand.  Balance, balance, balance; under the rhetoric it is still there, as long as we have faith in ourselves and our institutions.  And those who are interested and capable enough to read, think and inquire need to assist those with less capability to do so.  We ARE up to the challenge.

I have long been a supporter of sports; I took part in them; I attended events; and I wholeheartedly support the value that sports provide for life.  But I no longer take much personal interest, because I don’t feel that most of what is presented as “sports” any more are sports; they are a form of entertainment that is wholly, or at least mostly, dependent upon sales – money.  My opinion, of course.

How has this come about?  Television and related communications have a great part to play because they provide a market that did not exist with attendance and radio.  Sporting events of all kinds, have blossomed in popularity because they are available – and, at least in most cases, free, once one has invested in the receiving systems that provide them to their homes.  But it goes further than that, probably because the popularity – the vast market – has provided other opportunities, if I can use that word.  For example successful sports teams assist in college recruitment; people like to go where there are strong (and highly publicized) programs.  Is that akin to the desire for personal fame that has been building? I won’t suggest that connection, but I wouldn’t doubt it.  There is also a serendipitous cycle: successful sports can demand high revenues and the publicity that is generated makes recruiting of talented athletes easier, which makes the programs stronger yet – kind of a supply and demand cycle, making recruiting of athletes big business.  Meanwhile being a talented athlete has rewards far beyond what ever existed before.  Campus heroes are now national heroes; “name” athletes are celebrities, and we all know what that means to young people today.  Professional sports have grown with college sports, the latter feeding the former, and the hope – expectation actually, from a young age - of becoming a very highly paid athlete has become something we cannot discount.  Children in grade school have already decided that they are going to become professional athletes.  So what’s wrong with that?  I think it skews motivational reality.  Once convinced they are on the way, talented athletes tend to focus solly upon their sports, to the exclusion of much else, and they are encouraged to do so by the wild acclaim and popularity they achieve entirely through being a local celebrity.  Schools already suffer from poor to worse motivation and accompanying indifference to broad learning; but that can only be exaggerated when impressionable youngsters become convinced that athletics is all there is in life.  And let’s face it, many administrations at all levels feed that feeling.  Not that there hasn’t always been some of this, but high and constant publicity has driven it through the roof.

I have further concerns, however, or what to me have become massive disincentives, but then I have already admitted to naivete, as viewed through the prism of current culture: I have always seen sports as character building and, although I have pursued winning as much as anyone, I am appalled by the win at any cost mentality I see today.  Coaches are fired when they don’t win, whether or not they have the “manpower” to do so or not; if the don’t have it, get it.  Is that not incentive to use methods, if not illegal, at least unethical?  Hey, we are talking about big money, even at the high school level.  I am repulsed by the result – by the product.  Oh, they are talented, and they put on great shows; but that’s entertainment, not sports as I had always cherished them.  It was probably inevitable; fame and fortune does corrupt, and corruption in many sports at the professional level seem to have become endemic.  And after all, entertainment is what our culture has come to be all about hasn’t it?

I told you my view would be seen by most today as naive; but that is the way I see it, and have responded to it.  Having coached youth football and written about it, competed in it at Boy’s Club levels, and having it become a big part of my life, in track in high school and college (with, of course, nothing approaching fame), I no longer have, or want anything to do with sports.  An extreme response? yes, of course, but that’s what what is happening has done to me, and that is the way I answer the question that is the title of this short essay.

I had a Skype conversation with an Israeli acquaintance with whom I had the pleasure of working in Israel, and he made a comment that has resonated with me: you Americans are so naive.  Now think about how that resonates; if the aggressive type – right, YOU Americans are, and that’s what we have been telling you; or – you know?  we really are; or the more defensive – Israeli?  ha, what does he know?  But he put in words something I have come to believe; naive, although I have not addressed it quite that way, using other words that, however, come to pretty much the same.

We are so fortunate, partially because of the natural endowments of our natural resources; partly because of the legacy our forefathers left us; partly, let us be frank, because of the position fate left us after World War II.  Ahh, fate; luck, it has been said depends on what you do with it, and, although simplistic, there is much to that.  Nevertheless we are fortunate and those that have come before us have made the most of it, to our everlasting (or so we would wish) hope for the future.  But we are prone not to appreciate it; instead we (many) accentuate the opposite, pointing out all the negatives in our historical rise.  Recognizing mistakes is surely not all bad, because one cannot correct faults until they have been recognized, but to concentrate upon only the negatives, to the exclusion of the good and productive is…well, naive, or worse.  Progress must be built on assessment, reality and the positives; those who heap ashes upon themselves are hardly ever successful in that.  Why, after all, are we the market place for the world, the world’s  preferred, nay, necessary place to sell?  Why are we the essential destination for immigration?  Why are we the inspiration for the aspirations of the entire world?  Wow, we sure are neat; no, that is not the point.  So what is the point?  “We” have created something important and desirable in an imperfect world that others want to emulate – not imitate, emulate; they want what we have, or have achieved, and don’t really understand what it is, only what it has become, at least what they see it has become.  Again, let’s be frank: they envy us for what we have, and what they see is the material wealth and the ability to pursue it, even as they cannot see the effort it took and still takes.

They do not really understand why we have gotten to where we are – but neither do too many of us.  In a few words, we (many) are ignorant and naive, with little understanding of the underpinnings of our success; and we disparage or rail against the very success that has brought us to where we are.  Why?  Do we feel guilty?  Or do we have a perverse wish to bring ourselves down to the level that is more common in the rest of the world?  True egalitarianism, after all, must necessarily be equality at a much lower level than that which we enjoy, in almost all things.  Can that not be seen?  We have, with good historical benefits and excellent natural resources, created something wonderful; why can’t we accept that – and try to improve upon it?  That does not mean flaunting it, and we do; it does not mean pushing it on others, and we do; It also does not mean trying to force others to do our bidding, and we do.   And it won’t happen by thowing it all out and starting over.  It does require, however, that we understand it, and appreciate it.

And we didn’t just create it out of nothing; look at what we inherited from Europe, things such as religion, government, morality, science and industry.  Religion?  we disparage it as archaic.  Morality?  from what I have been reading we are marginalizing it as relativism.  We even put down (again, many do) our flexibly effective and powerful Constitution, and the society, culture and economy that it has spawned.  Many even (though they say otherwise) despise our military while ignoring the necessity – in this still imperfect world – of defending ourselves.  We owe much to others upon whom we have built our edifice, but prefer to ignore it or worse, put it down.

There are many examples of changes that are occurring.  One is what we are doing to our education in trying to make one size fit all - with one outlook expected by all.  Even something as fundamental as our economic system, that supports almost everything in our lives from funding everything we do, as well as supporting our vast retirement expections, is something to destroy; along with the vast system of development and production of all the things we take for granted.  We replace logic, with emotion and want to make decisions based on our own selfish fantasies instead of the realities of life.  We perversely celebrate underdogs, even criminal underdogs, because…I don’t know why because…and, it seems we glorify those that find ways to get out of contributing to society.  And worst of all, it seems to me, we reject human nature, attacking frailties and mistakes – of others, while ignoring our own.

This is not the way we became the favored place in the world to live, nor the way in which we continue to be that place.  So what is our future?  It is different whether we believe in ourselves or we do not.  Do we have a national death wish?  Do we want to become more like the rest of the world?  The answer for most of us, is no, we do not want to tear down what has been so carefully and effectively built up, nor do we want to give it away and watch it be squandered.  Not noticed by too many is that at least partly due to our efforts and example the world has slowly been becoming a better place, surely slowly, and imperfectly.  That can only continue if people, particularly our people, strive to build through our own efforts, and help others to do the same, and have the patience and strength to see it through; for if we don’t it will likely not get done, and the world we not be a better place, even here in America.

There are several websites being created out there in cyberspace that purport to address and convey moderation, presumably as a result of being dismayed at alternatives.  Having accessed one, I was disappointed, and wrote to the creator to express about  that disappointment.  It seemed to me that rather than attempting to view both sides of an issue, or even present the issue in a general sense, the site was a collection of articles that were not dissimilar to many others with a political bent, but each was just as partisan as any found elsewhere, but taking one side or the other.

I received a quick response for the creator (the articles are submitted to him by many contributors, as is common with many websites today, and he publishes them) explaining to me how he handled inputs and the subject matter that was referred to him, presumably seeking balance, without adding prejudice.  I thanked him for his quick response, but expressed sadness, probably, to him displaying what he considered naivete; and had that been his response he probably wouldn’t have been far off the mark.  We tend to have very strong opinions about politics and those that write articles for publication on websites probably have stronger opinions than most, else why would they bother?  If you view comments that appear at the end of many articles published on websites you will find them similarly biased.

First let me suggest that this is nothing new.  Opinions – positions – in our nation have always tended to be strong and emotional; that’s why politics here have been described as so chaotic.  Futhermore, as I have noted in the past, fundraisers in this day and age of greater fundraising need then ever before (high stakes, high costs and great power I suppose) like it that way because potential contributors are much more likely to feed the beast when their emotions are high and differences are sharply pronounced – perhaps kind of like the environment of betting?   How much of political contribution can be equated to betting on a winner?  I won’t venture an opinion on that one as I have no data to support it.

I was disappointed because my (probably naive) view of moderation entails something more: I prefer to see moderation of a view rather than moderation based on different contributors expressing their different views aggressively (which are not difficult to find elsewhere), which strikes me as inspiring the same kind of feeling that is supported by fundraisers.  Is it our competitive spirit?  That’s probably part of it.  But I see it as going deeper than that.

I see it as a degree of ignorance and closed minds, pushing towards propagandizing, but also capturing readers to accept a propaganda approach.   Having said that I also see the difficulty in and motivation not to seeing both sides of an argument, because, in my judgment, there is powerful little discussion any more and too much attack.  The debt/deficit challenge is perhaps the best example of opinion challenge any one in our lifetimes has had to face, and there is a staggering incentive to want to fight for one side or the other, beyond power potential involved; many on each side truly believe in what they are fighting for, despite the strong presence of gamers playing for personal advantage who are always with us, and always will be.

So I guess what really bothers me is the no holds barred approach taking by so many, reminding me of informal fighting before boxing and wrestling were legitimized and civilized, at least to the extent that they have been subjected to and conducted by rules.  An aside on that must recognize the new and rather murky world of extreme fighting which is (or purports to be) a throw back to the old way, but we won’t pursue that.  But the no holds barred approach we take seems to add a dimension, a mental to the physical: character assassination.  Rather than engaging in competition based on issues, character and positions, we seem more and more to be moving toward the negatives of attacking character, with facts if they are available, innuendo if they are not, and with out-and-out lies if there is no alternative.  Surely power, money, and the opportunity provided by our modern communications, including in some cases anonymity, contribute; perhaps together  that is what generates the motivation.  But underneath there is a cesspool of anger, hate and outright immorality that allows it to be pursued.

Yes, I suppose to expect otherwise is naive, but I sure hate to see it, and even more, hate to see it employed so slickly, and so effectively.  It says something about us that I do not like to see, or even admit.

We think about rule of law, if we ever do, as a right, accepted and assumed.  I have recently been letting my mind run away with the Occupiers, and rule of law comes immediately to mind, not so much because of their flaunting of it as to how easily we could slide into the kind of situation that exists in much of the developing world, where there is as much fear of police as there is of criminals, in fact with difference that is often marginal.

Does our system of rule of law and security have flaws?  Sure; name something created and administered by man that doesn’t.  Unfortunately we make a big deal of exposure of flaws and almost nothing of success; but that’s the way we are, just look at the way we muddle through politics.  Our system is amazingly effective when compared to many others across the world, and that is a big part of the culture that defines us, and, unfortunately, many disparage.  A recent study found that some 50% of respondents answered that we should not criticize the culture of others, regardless; murder?  maybe so, if that’s what they want.  Hmmmmm.  But what of those from such cultures who come here and insist on maintaining their own – some Muslims and Sheria law come to mind.

But put yourself in the position of a dissolution of rule of law and police protection if it were to occur here.  What if people showed up at the door, demanded entry, and cleaned us out, without recourse?  Put yourself in the place of a shop owner in New York’s Occupier district where windows are being broken and merchandise stolen; actually that happens all too frequently, but is almost always pursued as a criminal action – but what if the police were overwhelmed by it, and just gave up?  What would it be like if people with money and power excused themselves from being charged in our courts, and got away with it routinely?  Does that happen now, here?  Perhaps, but not routinely, and not without potential repercussion for them.  Think for example of the number of terrorist activities that our law enforcement have kept from happening, and which we have never even heard about because they were routinely thwarted.  We have crime, too much of it, but we also have conscientious attention to doing something about it.  What if 911 didn’t answer, ever?  What if the criminals ran free and controlled?  It is not unthinkable.

Unfortunately most of us, and particularly our young, have little knowledge and less interest on what has happened (and is happening) elsewhere in the world, and could happen here, if it were not for the relative effectiveness of our rule of law.  It is difficult to feel fortunate – and privileged – when what we have is assumed and therefore unappreciated.

We really really do need to give it thought and be thankful and appreciatve of it – and even consider doing what we can to make sure we preserve it, starting perhaps with rule of law, and the security that comes with it and our law enforcement.  We have so much, and treat it so cavalierly and even indifferently.  It surely is easier to criticize than to praise.

…As you would have them do unto you.  And who are those among us who reject the basis of that (although it can be found all across ancient philosophy until it reached its culmination in the Bible)?  And espouse it for others, but practice it very little in their own personal lives?

I wrote a poem while I was in Vietnam, many years ago – one of many, actually, called Flower Power:

Flower power, flower power, that’s the thing!

‘Got flowers on my helmet and my rifle sling.

Flower children, flower children, know the way:

Love each other, throw weapons away!

Make love, not war, a sensible cry…….

But….what about the other guy?

Yes, what about the other guy? the one who doesn’t share that philsophy?  Unfortunately the world is full of them, and many not only consider it naive, they see it as weakness – to be exploited.  Well, yes, but…But nothing; that’s the way it is.  Nor does it apply only to war, or foreign affairs for that matter; it applies to almost everything.  Take welfare for example, social assistance to the needy.  Is it the right thing to do?  Sure it is…for the truly needy; and most of them, with a little help, in our country, will find a way out of being needy.  A true story.  A priest in Dallas came upon a man and his family standing by their old car on the side of the road, with a sign asking for help.  They were homeless and down on their luck.  The priest invited him to come to the school with which he was associated, and offered him a job in maintenance, which he accepted.  For the next twenty years that man was one of the best maintenance men the school had; he is retired now.  That’s the way it should turn out.

But it’s not the way it commonly turns out, because too many, given something for nothing get to liking it, and never make an effort to get out.  The maintenance man was offered a chance; too many see it as a a crutch.  Remember the Chinese proverb: give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime?  We, many of us, are so naive; we do not think of human nature – of gaming it.  Why fish when someone will bring you a fish EVERY DAY, and ask nothing in return?

It is not that simple though, is it?  things rarely are.   How can we know?  Perhaps beginning by not being naive and gullible; by even being skeptical, and questioning; even expecting something in return; perhaps some initiative on the part of the recipient.  That can be difficult to achieve though, can’t it? but if we don’t?  We are about to be challenged in that respect with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  Ohhhh, it is being said, but that’s mine; I contributed to that.  Uh huh, but, it turns out, not nearly enough.  But, but…yes, there are many other points to it, including the “temporary” use to which the funds were put; but that’s then and this is now.  Unfortunately Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have been converted into a daily fish and not the skill of fishing.  But that’s unfair!  Yes, but how many see their social assistance payments in the same light?  The same thing?  No, not the same thing, but many of them don’t see any difference.  Human nature again.

Do unto others…what about those that follow along behind us?  What about…what about?  It is a sticky wicket.  What about the other guy?

We all know about the money that was lent to potential home owners that they couldn’t pay back.  More recently it’s been college educations that don’t provide expected success in the jobs markets.  And worse, degrees that are worthless; that reminds me of the similar cry being leveled at public schools: you didn’t teach me.  What ever happened to Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware)?  All I hear is that I have been cheated because “they” didn’t provide me with what I wanted, expected, or whatever they did provide didn’t work for me; whose fault?  “theirs,” whoever they are.  How about self-reliance – responsibility?

Now I am well aware of the other side, and don’t want to be cynical about it, so I call myself skeptical.  No, there are not enough low paying jobs in our economy (but there are enough to attract illegal immigrants).  Yes, kids from broken families, denied nurturing and never learning discipline, and being fed too much entitlement propaganda have trouble ever catching up and fitting in.  Yes, some kids just have difficulty learning – partly because they are not motivated to, and resist it, and don’t care much until the reality sets in years later.  But where does one draw the line; where do WE draw the line?

Taken to its logical conclusion we can all come up with reasons that life is not fair to us or at least to someone we know; it’s really is not fair.  So what is new about that?  Only that we seem to feel WE have to compensate them for it, no matter what the reason might be.  So if everyone is a victim who is left to foot the bill to compensate?  Where do we draw the line?

I am afraid that if we continue on the path we have begun that line will be drawn very, very low.  It really is, you know, mostly about envy.  We are, after all, entitled to fairness, equality, a “decent” job, “adequate wages,” a “reasonable” place to live, and so forth; the Occupiers tell us so.  There are many places in the world where this is more true perhaps than where we live, but fairness, adequacy, reasonable and equality comes at a very, very low level in those places.  Is that what we want?  There is apparently a strong consituency for that.  What are they thinking?

Ahhh that’s the proble