The Safety Catch

Each weapon I ever saw had at least one safety device to prevent unintentional discharge. We were always taught to treat each weapon as if it were loaded, even if we had just removed all the ammunition. We were taught to respect weapons for what they were—useful, but very dangerous tools.

In the past ten to fifteen years, we learned to use another dangerous tool—the Internet. However, the Internet has a less obvious safety device than any weapon. The first obvious safety device for any tool should be common sense. However, not everyone has or uses common sense. Obviously that is true of those who use the Internet just as much as it is of those who carry weapons.

Privacy on the Internet is a joke. Nothing that can be heard on a cell phone or seen on the Internet can remain hidden or private. This certain knowledge can be regarded as the warning on the carton of ammunition—potentially dangerous and explosive. User is solely responsible for outcome. Even if posted, this warning probably would be ignored by Internet users just as often as it is ignored by those who load weapons.

Whether it is a princess, an athlete, the son of a college dean, or a politician, what is said or written in private is no longer private when it goes to the Internet.

Words and opinions can be dangerous when used irresponsibly. But which is worse? Is irresponsible use of words any worse than the demands of those who feel they have the right to judge what was supposed to be a private message?

Many companies now control their e-mail systems to prevent unfair business practices or other insider damage control. But when did our high schools and universities begin to practice the same type of control? When young people post foolishness on a social Internet site, the foolishness is their problem—not that of the school. When a college student privately posts critical remarks about his school, does that give the school the right to harass the student?

One step further leads us to public words spoken, written, or posted online: does any government entity have the right to judge, condemn, or coerce a person who is critical of our government or any laws passed by our government? The obvious answer sounds like a safety catch—The Patriot Act. No one wants anarchy in our country or even acts or words to incite rebellion. But the Patriot Act can take away our right to express our honest—even though critical—opinions. Restricting freedom of speech is the same as saying that we are too foolish to be responsible citizens. Yet somehow freedom of speech always seemed like a good idea. Just as competition seems to help markets grow, freedom of speech seems to help us develop ideas and learn more about our fellow man. What happens when we remove the safety catch on democracy?

Perhaps it is true: it is the empty weapon which kills.

Not Your Mother’s Washtub

Our lives just seem to become more convenient every day, so it seems a horrible shock when incredible doesn’t work the way it should. If the TV should lose its signal, we hardly know what to do beyond griping and snorting—especially if we miss a play during the World Series. It is difficult to imagine the days when folks had to listen to sporting events on the radio.

My grandmother thought her life had become almost heavenly when she finally got a ringer washer out on the farm. Our fourth or fifth washer went out the other day, and we went to our local lumber yard the very next day and brought home another one because we consider that appliance essential. It is strange how some things have taken their own positions on our list of priorities. A telephone is one item on that list. Our cell phone isn’t all that technical. I can actually use it to make and receive calls and even have some numbers installed in its memory—which is extra nice now that my memory seems to balk on occasion. Most of the children in our extended family have texting on their cell phones down to a speed system, however. And eventually they will consider their ‘old’ phones too obsolete for use.

We seem somehow to have lost that sense of adventure that came naturally with living in the country. We never knew when we would find a snake in the hen house or an armadillo in the garden, but recently it seemed like a very strange inconvenience to have our dog make the acquaintance of a skunk. When HarleyB returned to the back door reeking of essence of skunk, I was able to access the formula for removal of skunk oil immediately by using the Internet. Using peroxide, baking soda, and soap to clean the dog, we were able to allow him to finish spending the night in the house. It occurred to me that I would not have known what to use to clean him if it had not been for the convenience of instant information from the Internet.

The contrast between what our lives were like 50 or 60 years ago and our lives today may seem silly in a few short years for one reason or another. When contrasted with much of the world, we are so blessed. Our forefathers wrestled with this land during years of drought, floods, storms, and other natural disasters. But the blessings came despite the circumstances. Opportunistic scoundrels or gifted individuals, they gave back to the world what they were given, full measure, shaken down. Giving back became the American way, but it was always with a generous willingness. That may change; and if it does change, the world will be a poorer place both literally and figuratively. I challenge anyone to look at the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

When our President signs this legally binding treaty, our world as we know it will change drastically. You will never even remember your mother’s washtub and its wonderful convenience.

Heart Healthy

A few days ago Fang wanted vanilla ice cream, chocolate fudge, and nuts. Now that sounds like a good start on a banana split to me. Of course, all the ingredients have to be sugar free and low in carbs. That makes life interesting, but thanks to our country's lifestyle, so many people need sugar-free products that it is much easier to find a good selection of products in almost any store.

While I was picking out Fang's favorite Braum's ice cream, I noticed a man with a rather large protrusion from his chest to his lap. This protrusion reminded me of an article I read about measuring our diabetes risk with a ruler or--as it would have had to be in this man's case--with a yardstick. My thoughts were that the fellow needed to put back something or go for a nice healthy walk.

Now, I would never pick on folks who are overweight--if for no other reason than that I count myself among the many who are. But since Fang just returned from quadruple bypass surgery only this past Wednesday (September 23), I am more aware than ever of our need to control what we put in our bodies and how much exercise we really need. Genetics plays a big part in our tendency to become diabetic or to have heart disease, but we can do so much to help ourselves.

Fang was especially blessed to have a very healthy vascular system--except for four blockages. He has always been active and keeps his mind busy learning things and exploring the richness of being a grandfather. To put it bluntly, he is a happy man. But lack of oxygen to his heart has caused problems this past several months that just seemed to come out of nowhere. And we never suspected that his heart was the problem and would never have known had he not had a simple EKG done in our doctor's office.

The long and short of my thoughts today is that life is too wonderful to throw away or to treat carelessly. Happiness is a choice; to some degree, health is among our choices as well. Take care of yourselves; we need every gripey old man and woman around here to support the doctors who take Medicare.

National Gallery of Writing Badge

Sometimes I wonder why I enjoy writing. And then someone or something comes along to remind me. NTCE is one of those organizations that tends to encourage teachers and writers to do what they do best.


Carla Beard has been one person who has been an encouragement along this bumpy road, so shortly she will receive an e-copy of what I hope will be the final draft of my first novel. For some stupid reason, the name for this book has not yet solidified for me. I have thought of Family Connections, yet that doesn't quite do it. Well, time has a way of bringing things to ripeness. We shall see.


Meanwhile, today is our youngest son's 30th birthday: Happy Birthday Hanan!


We were told this past week that our world would be turned upside down for a bit as of next Thursday. We are walking quietly and waiting for the answer to prayers and thinking that life is never certain, to say the least. Maybe the wandering trip by the Mountain Jews in my book is a bit of a symbol for the uncertain destinations that we yearn toward. Sometimes we walk forward--or what we believe might be forward--with a determination that belies our fears and frailities. We try to walk in faith, and we stumble in the darkness of the dread of we know not what. As uncertain as our lives may be, we hold to them and to those we love with a fierceness borne of desperation simply because we cannot imagine a better way. And yet I am reminded lately that it is not MY will, but God's will that will be done.

In this life, nothing is ever finished.

A NEW and IMPROVED HANDMAID’S TALE

‘No one will ever tell me what I can say or not say or what I can think or not think. I still live in a free country!’ Those had been his words only a few weeks before today. But today he had been to the pharmacy. They could not—would not—fill his prescription for blood pressure medicine. When he had objected that he was paying cash for his medicine instead of using the state program for older persons, he had been told that no medications could be dispensed outside of the guidelines of the program. In other words, he had to subscribe to the state’s program or do without.


He had known the pharmacist for years at this store, but his friend no longer worked in the pharmacy. He had been retired a few weeks earlier because he had objected to the guidelines for dispensing medications. One of the pharmacy clerks caught up with Johnson as he left the store and quickly whispered that his friend the pharmacist had taken some of the final solution. The clerk expressed her disbelief in his acquiescence to its administration. Johnson would not find any information in the state run newspapers since obituaries were no longer permitted.


A few days later, even though his head was pounding, Johnson had decided that he had to go to his favorite all-in-one-stop store to buy a few groceries. This store had the motto ‘As Joe’s Goes, So Goes the Nation.’ Today he would have to walk or ride a bicycle to the store. He could no longer buy fuel for his small vehicle since the state had declared a moratorium on unnecessary travel and fuel consumption due to a sudden loss of markets overseas. Johnson would be able to buy only what he could carry the five miles back to his home.


No vehicles had been in the enormous parking lot at Joe’s. A few bicycles had littered the grass near the islands that floated on the sea of asphalt. A sign on the door of Joe’s had declared that its doors would reopen from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. on even days. It had been Wednesday at 2 p.m. when he had arrived, exhausted but proud of his vigor at his age. Then he had attempted to look inside the glass doors to see if he could find anyone to talk to him. Only total darkness within the building had convinced him that his trip had been futile. This had been his only hope for food since all other local stores had been closed.


The grass along the highways had not been mown in some time. Somehow Johnson had remembered that his mother had pointed out the salsify plants that had bloomed and produced tiny helicopters when the seed pods were ripe. The roots of the plants were supposed to be edible. Johnson had begun to look for blooms or even the thick stalks that would give away the location of the roots. It had not been the right season.


When Johnson had returned to his home, he had found several new occupants. He had already begun to accept the new ‘Fairness Act’ that provided each individual with one room within the new government housing projects, but he had been totally unaware that ALL homes had been declared part of each area’s projects. Private ownership had been declared unfair to everyone who had not been able to acquire the means for affordable housing. Johnson’s home of 50 years no longer belonged to him. He had been assigned an area to share with another older man.


Johnson’s death had been expected. The mediations he had been taking had been gradually adjusted by the manufacturers so that the older generation had been easy to remove from the government rolls. Nothing he had owned remained, and his ashes had been among the many that had been mixed into a new organic compound used for pavement patches. Now he would truly support his country.

Diogenes Today

Recently some companies decided that they were not being properly represented in the marketplace by sponsoring a nationally syndicated talk show. The host managed to comment in a censorious manner upon the ultimate authorities in America, the President and Congress. He cast aspersions upon what he considered to be corrupt, suspect, or at least unworthy intentions as demonstrated by forthcoming legislation and contradictory utterances that seemed to make a mockery of truth and forthrightness.

His remarks bring to mind—at least to my mind—two questions: What is racist and in what possible contexts can the term be properly used? Race is defined—other than by genetic characteristics—as those united by common history, language, or cultural traits. Racial is defined as pertaining to or characteristic of one race or the races of humankind; or between races: the terms are racial harmony and racial relations. Racism is defined thus: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior; or a policy, system of government, etc., based on such a doctrine; hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. One assumes that the racist would be anyone who makes a remark or otherwise indicates that he or she holds the beliefs of racism.

Do any of our countrymen consider themselves superior to John Q. Public or Janice Q. Jones of Jonesville?

The television and the Internet provide a wonderful window on America. How realistic the view might be is another question. But the definition may have to be stretched across the screen or compared to the sites found on the Web: racism is a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. The teachers who discovered that their students WOULD learn if the expectation was given to them have proven that individual achievement has nothing to do with race. So much for that idea!

Television has presented the entire world with the extreme contrasts between those who have much and those who have little to nothing. Whether it is the ‘star’ of some soap opera, an athlete, or someone who has inherited an insane amount of wealth, the lives of those who have something make a couple of things obvious: wealth can make a difference in the manner one eats and in the manner one goes to jail.

Does the wealthy person fit the definition of racist? Does wealth cause hatred or intolerance of others? It is more likely that the wealthy person never considers those who have no wealth. Of course, no overall judgment can be made about any people: wealthy, healthy, wise, talented, or fumbling. The importance of knowing those who consider themselves above anyone else is the effect on the rest of us. So who makes the laws we must follow? Who consider themselves above those same laws? Who are the racists?

Does Diogenes still speak?

NON-POLITICAL GOVERNMENT

No intelligent person is without an opinion, or a viewpoint, however warped or skewed either might be. Intelligence has no immunity from stupidity or egotism. But generally the intelligent person has something in common with his fellow man—a sense of right and wrong. Today some of the leaders of our nation have told us that THEY hold the hallmarks or standards of right and wrong—that they alone have the intelligence and common sense understanding to guide the rest of the nation in the best path for the common good.

When a standard applies to ALL, it is truly a standard. When some exempt themselves from the same standard that applies to others, it no longer can be called a standard. Government can be called a standard for those governed, but it MUST apply to all equally. In America, this concept goes back to that one statement with which most are familiar: “all men are created equal.”

Apparently, if what is shown on television and seen or read on the Internet can be considered any indication of the concept of ‘equality,’ NOT every American has been created equal. The average American equals a source of income or self-aggrandizement for those who have bought a position in ‘government.’ Those in government positions are not now, nor conceivably ever have been considered ‘equal’ to the rest of Americans. They are ABOVE the rules and regulations that apply to Joe and Jane Citizen.

Joe and Jane Citizen may or may not have a bank account, a home, a means of transportation, and decent food that must be prepared daily by one of the household members. Of all the ‘things’ that appeal to them as desirable, they generally understand the difference between a desire and a necessity and are willing to forego the pleasure of more ‘things’ until the family budget can accommodate such a purchase. Either one or both of these family members work diligently to fulfill the desires of the rest of the family, sacrificing individual desires for the good of the entire family.

Joe and Jane also have hopes for the future and compassion for those who seem less fortunate than themselves. Joe works and Jane volunteers her time to help build a home or to volunteer in some capacity to serve the community. Neither take for granted that life will give them what they need or desire simply because they exist; they understand that effort is required for whatever they earn. But they are willing to do whatever is necessary to provide for their family and to secure their future as they conceive it.

The ‘government’—those in charge of determining the value applied to the lives of all the Joes and Janes of America—have their own standard of compassion and their own set of hopes for the future. No concept of earning respect or serving exists in the standards of those involved in ‘government’ unless the person has already proven himself or herself to be a servant of those governed. One wonders how many servants currently exist in government. Can a few servants offset the entrenched attitudes of self-importance among those who have come to feel superior to all the Joes and Janes?

What made America great from the very beginning? The servants who were willing to work for the good of all and who realized that they were, indeed, servants made the difference. Individuals were willing to set aside whatever could have created personal comfort to assist in creating security and comfort for all. It was not the ‘government’ they created that made America what it should be; it was the individual who was willing to sacrifice self for others. How much of that sacrifice is left in our government today?