Author: Peter

by

Whatever Happened to the American Dream?


The simple answer is ‘it is alive and well.”  But the form it takes varies greatly.  That form is, of course, defined by whoever has that dream.  But like so much of what I write, this subject needs a little history behind it.

The first people to have a dream that America could possibly answer were English merchants, followed by the group of separatists we now call the Pilgrims.  They were followed by the Puritans.  Each of these first three groups had their own separate and specialized version of the new American dream.  The English merchants saw huge economic possibilities in the New World.  The Pilgrim came purely for religious freedom, and the Puritans for a combination of both, religion and  business.  All three groups realized the American dream, some quickly, some a little more slowly.

Through 1945 at least, the idea of freedom of some sort, religious, business, personal, was the single most attractive part of the American dream.  Even when immigrants were sold a bill of goods, as the Italians and Poles who were recruited at the beginning to the 20th century to work American factories with the promise of riches, many had come to escape the persecution of the Tsar, military impressment, and starvation that the Italian immigrant had known.  They were huddled into ethnic masses, ghettos, in America’s cities, and while the original immigrants found it difficult to escape the squalor they found themselves in, most quickly came to realize that the potential for their children far outweighed whatever shortcomings they had endured.

But the end of World War 2 saw the return of over 2 million soldiers to the American economy.  The federal government, remembering the economic travails of World War One vets, decided to give veterans a way to buy their own homes through the Veterans Administration which gave rise to the VA Home Loan.  World War One vets had felt abandoned and when the depression hit, they formed what was called “Hooverville” right next to the capitol building.  They were a constant reminder the president and congress of the unfilled promises made them following WWI.

Enter a man named William Jaird Levitt.  In the late 1920s he developed an idea of selling a large tract of affordable housing to upper middle class Americans on Long Island.  The idea, while successful, was derailed by the depression.  During WWII he won a large contract to build housing for the navy.  But when the federal government came up with the idea of government guaranteed loans, Levitt cashed in by creating an entire town on Long Island, Levitttown.  Small tract houses were advertised to the veteran as a way to realize the American dream, at least as defined by Levitt.  Levitt invited ex-servicemen to visit his model house and see how they could cash in on the new American dream, a house, a car, a wife, and two kids.  That advertising ploy was hugely successful, so much so, that some years later Levitt repeated his idea in Pennsylvania.  But now, burned into the American psyche, was this new version of the American dream and it has survived to this day.

In 1922 Congress passed an immigration law, the first of its sort, the limited the number of immigrants who could enter the U.S.  The law, hugely racist, was passed using 1900 immigration figures as the basis of who could enter the U.S. and in what numbers.  In 1900 the largest portion of immigrants came from northern Europe.

On April 30, 1975, the American embassy in Saigon Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese communists.  Americans saw on their television hundreds of Vietnamese, friends of America they were called, being airlifted off the top of the American embassy.  Shortly after that hundreds of Vietnamese who feared for their lives took to boats to escape their native land.  They became known as the “boat people.”  Most of those refugees were welcomed to America in no small part because of American guilt over what had occurred in their homeland.  The point here is, first, America made an exception to the immigration law, and second, but more importantly, these Vietnamese had an American dream in their minds that did not include a house, a car, and two kids.  Their dream was a throwback to the original settlers of English North America and the immigrants who came through the early part of the 20th Century.

Today’s politicians are selling the American public the idea that the American dream includes a right to a job, a right to very low taxes, and a right to feel entitled.  Those three things are a gross exaggeration of reality.  At the beginning of the 20th century poor immigrants desired one thing and one thing only, a chance.  They did not feel entitled to anything.  I think Americans today believe the American dream should be given to them and not worked for.

The American dream is alive and well, it is just not the one being sold by the politicians.  It is not up to the government to find you a job.  It is up to you.  It is not up to the government to lower the unemployment rate, it is up to business.  You are not entitled to a car, a house, or anything else save a chance equal to that of anyone else.  The American dream is the chance to lead a happy and successful life according to your own definition of what that looks like, and nothing more.

by

The Truth About Political Debates


There was a time, long ago, when candidates were forced to go to open air venues to have their debates in public places so people could take their measure.  In the early 20th century, a man named James Michael Curley burst upon Massachusetts politics.  At the time, 1910, he was simply trying to become a U.S. Representative for the 10th district, a seat no Democrat in anyone’s memory had ever held, and no one expected that to change.  But the 10th district had a heavy Irish population and other new immigrant groups.  Curley was a charismatic Irishman who had grown up poor but had worked in the wards under the bosses of the day.  He was an excellent speaker, never at a loss for words.  Curley was anything but a household name but at those debates he skillfully used his opponents own words against him.  He could turn a phrase and get his audience to identify with him.

The Brahmins of Boston, the well-entrenced Republican establishment, were outraged.  In  a later election when Curley ran for mayor of Boston, he said that on his first day of office he would turn the Boston Common into a parking lot.  Of course this was only a slap at the landed gentry who still failed to recognize the trials of the working class.

But it was not until 1960 and the Kennedy – Nixon debate, sometimes referred to as “the checkers debate,” that politics embraced television, and it has been downhill ever since.  Political parties write the speeches, figure out how to portray political positions, and dictate how any given answer needs to be given.  These are not debates at all but well-scripted advertisement.

I have a pretty good sense of who Barack Obama is and who Mitt Romney is, having lived in Massachusetts during his governorship.  I also have a pretty good idea of who Scott Brown is but, sadly, I do not have much of an idea who Elizabeth Warren is.  Something that is very important to me, family, seems to have been avoided by Warren making me very suspicious of her, and pushing me, a Democrat, into the position of likely voting for her Republican opponent.

It was during their last so-called debate that I came to this decision.  I found both of them to be rather disingenuous.  Each seemed to be responding to questions with very well-scripted answers that seldom properly responded to the question on the floor.  Frequently each simply side-stepped the question and said whatever they felt was important rather than simply answer the question at hand.  But this is our present state of politics at the national level.

It is my firm belief that when these politicians speak we are not hearing what they really think but rather what their handlers, those nameless people behind the scenes, want us to hear and nothing more.  The question on every American’s mind when they hear a politician in one of these so-called debates say something that appears to exactly reflect their views, ask yourself if they are simply playing up to you and in reality have another agenda entirely.  I suspect, regardless of party affiliation, the latter is closer to the truth than the former.  We need to go back to the days when two guys would stand on a stage, say their peace without anyone prompting them as to what is proper and what is not.

by

What Do Government Employees Do?


There are three levels of government; federal, state, and local.  I am going to focus on the federal level as that is where my experience of 30 years is, 11 years on active duty in the Army and another 19 years for the Department of Transportation.  The group of employees I am addressing are the civil service workers, not the political appointees.

Every member of the military is a government employee and I do not think that needs any explanation.  But behind them, in the Department of Defense, are tens of thousands of civilian employees who support them.  This sort of employee exists in every federal agency.  They are managers, engineers, lawyers, inspectors, researchers, office assistants and a host of other jobs.  The overwhelming majority of federal lawyers spend little to no time in the court room.  Theirs is the world of assuring that the various activities of the particular agency they work for are proper and legal.  They are the overseers of contracts, employment activities, interagency agreements, agreements with the private sector, and anywhere else their agency’s business takes them.  One of the largest portion of the Defense Department’s civilian employees are support services.  These are people assist in the development and fielding of equipment that our troops must use.  They are engineers, inspectors, supply experts, logistics experts, etc.

There are at least two places that the entire American public relies upon on a daily basis.  All food and medications are inspected by employees of the Department of Agriculture.  Because of this we have the safest food supply in the world, and this includes our water supply.  Everyday there are inspectors who go around checking to see that the food entering our stores meets certain federally mandated qualities.  They make sure the medications we buy at the drug store, not just prescription medications but over-the-counter as well, also meet certain high standards.  In this our country is also second to none.  When epidemic possible diseases are detected it is the federal government in the form of its employees who are on the front lines figuring out what those diseases are exactly and what we can do about them.

Every time you get in any sort of vehicle on any public road the standards for those roads and the vehicles that cover them, are set by the federal government.  Government inspectors are constantly inspecting large trucks and the roads they travel over.  In this same vein, all of aviation falls under the purview of the federal government.  The regulations that cover every commercial aircraft, and their inspections, are federal mandates.  So strict are these mandates that if the same standard we used on our private cars, a large portion of the public could not afford to own the vehicle.  The federal government maintains a database of every aircraft in the air today, of every pilot, of every commercial airline regardless of the sort of business they do, and holds each to a very strict level of standards.  It takes a lot of people, government employees, to complete such work.

One of the false notions that people have about government employees is that they have it easy and do not do much work.  I can assure you that at the federal level, at least, nothing could be further from the truth.  Most government workers work in excess of 40 hours of work but most do not get overtime pay for their efforts.  Furthermore, government employees pay 50% of the medical insurance, pay into their retirement, and pay social security medicare taxes as well.

The federal government employs approximately 2.5 million people full-time, and another 250,000 part-time.  If there is fault to be found in these numbers, that is looking to reduce those numbers, people must consider from which department the reductions are going to come.  If, for example, people do not understand what the Department of the Interior does and want reductions to start there, they need to know that all National Parks come under the Interior and it is those people you are looking to reduce.  Anyone who works at a military research facility is part of Defense.  And so it goes.

You may think you do not know any federal employees, but chances are you do.  But even if you do not, you count on their existence for your personal happiness and safety.   Most government employees are very well-educated and dedicated people who work hard and turn in a full day’s work.

by

Killing the Federal Government’s Sacred Cows


This post may seem rather odd coming from a lifelong registered Democrat and yet it does.  But I do believe that there are entire agencies within the federal government that need to be greatly reduced if not entirely disbanded.  Our government is trying to be all things to all people, and that is just an impossibility.  Most agencies were founded with the idea that since they apply to all people in the United States the federal government is the natural head.  That is both idealistic and overly optimistic.

One of the sacred cows of the Democrat Party is Health and Human Services.  This is an agency that should probably exist, in a much reduced form, under another cabinet head with most of its services being relegated to the individual states.  I think this also applies to housing and urban developement.  This does not mean I am in favor of eliminating welfare, but it does mean I believe welfare should be entirely funded by the individual state.

I have no idea why the Department of Energy exists as a cabinet post at all.  It would seem that its various organizations are better fitted beneath other existing agencies such as transportation and commerce.

Another cabinet post that thoroughly aggravates me Homeland Security.  This was a knee-jerk reaction by the Bush administration to the events of September 11, 2001.  While I agree in principle that greater security measures were needed, I entirely disagree, obviously with how this was carried out.  Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code dictates how our military troops can be used on U.S. soil.  Events following the incident at Kent State in the 1960s forced the issue of how the army can be used during civil discord.  It was affirmed that they cannot arrest any U.S. citizen for any reason, that is the domain of local, state, and federal police forces.  It should be noted, however, that there is absolutely no function which is the domain of Homeland Security that did not exist under some other authority prior to the events of 9/11.  It did mean that such activities needed to be better defined and expanded, but not to the extent that has happened.  Our troops, to included the Coast Guard, can be and should be used to assist in security our airports and seaports.  In fact, an open military presence at such facilities would likely underscore the commitment of the U.S. Government to the protection of its people.

Democrats are calling for a huge reduction in the Department of Defense’s budget citing the reduction of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Republicans seem to be complicit by the simple fact that they have not raised much of a fuss over proposed budget reductions.  This is one, along with State, of the cabinet posts that neither needs reduction in personnel nor funding.

The Department of Veteran Affairs should be made a part of Defense.  And with that, a compact needs to be struck such that anyone who has honorably served in our armed forces can expect lifetime care by the DoD.  This would not only make the military a more attractive place to young men and women, but would also enable all disabled veterans to get a consistently high level of care they deserve.  Understand, the VA would not go away but would become an active arm of DoD and find its funding there.

The federal government does need to redefine how its distributes funding among its various agencies to support the needs of the states.   Republicans are fond of saying how American business is better suited to do certain things the government now does.  And where the Department of Energy is concerned, save the regulatory portion, I could not agree more.  I believe that all portions of research and development done by the DOE, as well as any number of other agencies, is better left to the private sector.

Every person in every state must realize that to reduce the size and cost of the federal government means individual states taking on those tasks.  Health, welfare, housing, and many other programs now run by the fed will be taken over and funded by individual states.  As an individual you have to come to terms with what that means and what it is going to look like.  Personally, I am all for it.

by

Is Massachusetts Turning Republican?


Twenty years ago such a question would be laughable.  Even today some might scoff at it considering the makeup of the Massachusetts legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat.  I am, and always have been, a registered Democrat.  But I suspect that like me, many of my fellow Democrats in this state are rather fed up with the arrogance shown by the state’s Democrats.

Massachusetts has elected the occasional Republican to state-wide and national office, Edward Brooke and William Weld in the more distant past.  But they were more the exception.  State politics has been large dominated by Democrats since the FDR administration, and to some degree prior to that with James Michael Curley.  But recent events where Democrats have been accused and convicted of felonious acts has given the state’s voters reason to question their elected leaders.  The worst thing they have done, which is not a crime but a betrayal of faith, has been the arrogance of the party leadership in the state.

Two national offices are being heavily contested in the state right now, that for a U.S. Senate seat, Brown vs. Warren, and US Representative seat, Tierney vs. Tisei.  And in some sense, Mitt Romney too, although I view him as truly a Michigan native rather than a Massachusetts resident.

In the case of Brown vs. Warren, we have a very affable Republican in Brown who is the state’s Republican US Senator being opposed by a very cerebral and professorial sounding Warren.  And that is her biggest problem.  She claims to come from blue-collar America but sounds anything but.  If anything, she comes across as preachy and professorial.  She is difficult to identify with at much of any level.  Brown, quite simply, comes across as entirely middle-class.  He is a middle-class veteran that I can more easily identify with than Warren’s academic persona.  If history teaches us anything, it is that people vote for who they best identify with which does not necessarily mean who is best qualified.  In this case, however, I cannot say that Brown is not best qualified to both serve and properly represent me.  That, it is my guess, is the question Warren needs to respond to more than any other and which, I doubt, the Democratic leadership of this state will come to terms with.  In the end, I expect Brown will be re-elected.  And even though I cannot say for certain right now, he may well get my vote.

Tierney is a case of absolute arrogance.  I do not, for a second, want Tisei to win this race however I feel he has an excellent chance of doing exactly that.  Not so many years Thomas Finneran had the same arrogance being displayed by Tierney.  As it turned out, Finneran was guilty of, at the very least, comprising the public trust for his own personal ends.  I think Tierney is guilty of the same thing.  It is difficult to believe that a man, as intelligent as he is, had no idea of his family’s involvement in illegal gambling activities long before it became public.  I have to admit that my distrust of Tierney pre-dates that.  It goes back to the mid-1990s when he was opposed by a man named Peter Torkilson, a Republican.  I voted for Torkilson back then on a gut feeling that he was simply the better man.  Unfortunately I am no longer in that district so I cannot have any say in that election.  I do not believe, however, that the state’s Democratic leadership has properly and fully addressed the charges leveled against Tierney by the Republican party.  It simply and arrogantly believes he will get re-elected because you have to go far before anyone’s memory to find a Republican being elected from that district.  The thing is, I know that district to be more conservative than party leaders tend to believe.  It would not take much for more conservative Democrats, like myself, to turn the present election in favor of Tisei.  And that is exactly what I believe is going to happen.

Right now probably few people in Massachusetts believe that Mitt Romney will carry his declared home-state in the presidential election.  The last time that happened was when Al Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee.  And as likely as it is that Obama will carry Massachusetts, it should not be taken for granted.  And yet that is exactly what Democratic leadership is doing.

In the latest round of political debates, Warren, Biden, and Obama each lost their respective debates.  Tierney and Tisei will not have any public debate forum although they should.  The point is, Democrats seem to be riding on their laurels thinking they have the upper hand.  They do not, by any stretch of the imagination.  Since those debates, each of the Democrats has lost their lead in the respective race to their Republican opponent.  That is extremely significant because it shows a reversal of fortunes.

I think most Americans find it difficult to believe much of anything politicians say, even those they vote for.  You frequently hear them state they are “voting for the lesser of two evils.”  How can that ever be a good thing?  I noted in the debates that when asked direct and simple questions, those question largely went unanswered.  The politician being asked did a tap dance around the truth, but seldom gave what was a clear and simple answer.  Would it not be refreshing to hear a candidate just once say, “I don’t know, but I intend to find out.”

I do not think Massachusetts is suddenly going to become a state in which Republicans rule the roost.  But I do believe, at least in the two contests mentioned, that Republican will prevail.  I think it good that Republican should have more of a say in this state’s politics.  It makes the Democrats more honest, or possibly honest in the first place.  But maybe, just maybe, it will knock some of the arrogance from the state’s Democrat Party.

by

Has the Earth Been Visited By Alien Life Forms?


Personally, I think it entirely likely.  I am not going to point to UFO sightings or any such thing but rather just a little bit of logic.  But first we need to establish our place in the universe.  By that I mean, exactly where are we in this great big universe?

It is believed that we sit on one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way Galaxy.  It is only a belief because, of course, we simply do not have a good vantage point to see our entire galaxy.  In reality, the shape of our galaxy is mostly an educated guess, but probably a pretty good one.  Our galaxy is between 100 and 120,000 light years across.  Light travels 5.87849981 × 1012 miles in one year, or about 6,000 trillion miles.  And it gets better.  Within our galaxy there exist a least 1 billion stars.  Now if you consider the chance of life just within our galaxy to be a million to one against that any single star has life in its proximity, that means life is almost a sure thing within our galaxy alone.

Astronomers know that there are at least a billion galaxies each with a billion stars in our universe.  With such numbers the chance of life is not only a sure thing, but is more a case of how many instances does it exist.

The Andromeda Galaxy is our closest galactic neighbor.  It sits a mere 200 million light years away.  That means that any life form that set out from Andromeda at a speed just slightly less than the speed of light had to have left long before dinosaurs existed on Earth just to arrive here in present day.  I think it reasonable to conclude that travel from there is unlikely using all light speed based scenarios.

The closest star to us in Proxima Centauri which is a mere 4.2 light years away, or 20,000 trillion miles away.  Right now about the only theories of how to travel such distances exist mainly in science fiction.  While physicists speculate how we might build a space ship to accommodate such speed, the energy required is greater than all known sources.  And yet I say other beings have likely resolved such problems.  How?

Astro-phycisists speculate that the way to traverse such a distance is through the distortion of space-time.  Scientists have been able to minutely affect the shape of space-time which allows for far greater distortions even though we do not have the means at present.

Our solar system has existed for the last third of the time the universe has existed.  That means another “solar system” could have been in existence during the 4 billion years prior to ours, have given rise to intelligent life forms who in turn have resolved many of the problems of long distance travel.  It is possible they have existed for billions of years where mankind has existed for only 1 to 2 million years.  That would give them a pretty good leg up on us in all respects.  So much so that they could have foreseen the demise of the star where they originally existed and have moved on to another.   That being the case, their traveling to our solar system would be old hat.

How does this bending of space work?  Let’s consider we decide we want to travel from New York City to Sydney Australia.  We get on an airplane and travel over 10,000 miles to get there.  At 500 MPH that would take about 20 hours of flying time.  But, if we could go straight through the earth to Sydney the distance is reduced to a little over 3000 miles, or 6 hours of time at 500 MPH.   That is the “bending” that physicists suggest we do with space-time to reduce travel time.

We earthlings are right now devising theories to tackle to problems of traveling great distances.  It is not unreasonable to expect that a society a mere 1,000 years advanced from us may well have such problems at least partially resolved.  And when you allow for an alien society to have existed even more than that you by extension increase the probability that they have also done interstellar travel and possibly intergalactic travel.

All things considered, I think it most likely that we have been visited and studied by E.T.  I suspect that contact has not been made simply because we are viewed as far too primitive, and also probable communications problems.  How do you tell a primitive society, us, that you come in peace?  Considering how warlike humans are that is no easy task.

by

What Should We Teach High Schoolers in American History?


I received at master degree in US History from Harvard University.  That, in itself, does not make me any sort of expert on the subject.  To the contrary, it has only made me more aware of just how much there is to learn, and of how little I know.  Even so, by necessity, I was required to know a particularly high degree of knowledge about U.S. History in general.

Over 20 years ago a man named Howard Zinn wrote a treatise on the history of the United States. He offered it as a particularly honest look at American history.  Although Zinn did not say this, it seems it was intended to counter the accepted texts in existence in American schools.  And therein lies the “problem” that many see in the texts used in our public schools.  There is nothing particularly revolutionary in Zinn’s book.  But it certainly is not a text book nor could it be used very effectively as one.

I very recently saw someone put up a map of the general areas that the native Americans once occupied.  The question was asked why such things are not taught in American schools.  It is not a bad question, in itself, but there is an even more basic question that has to be asked of any published text.  That question is:  “What do we include and what do we exclude in our texts?”

Many decades ago a social anthropologist name Clifford Geertz wrote a scholarly work called “A Thick Interpretation of Cultures.”  His entire point was that history, and related works, needed to consider all facts involved with any situation before coming to any sort of conclusion.  He used the Battle of Waterloo, where Wellington defeated a superior force with a superior field general, Napoleon, and asked a simple question, how?  It was not enough to say bad luck, or a superior battle plan, or any other single thing.  He suggested that something as simple as weather conditions played an important role in Napoleon’s defeat.   The point it, to properly tell the story of this single engagement would, at the very least, require several text pages.  By extension, if every very important situation that has been experienced in the United States is to be faithfully related, we would need text books that would count in the multiple of volumes to discuss any single era, let alone our entire history.

The answer to the question of the map of Native American tribes is simply that a good historian would have to devote at least an entire book to explaining who these people were, how they came to live where they started and where they ended up, along with a lot of details about their encounters with the European settles, French, English, and Spanish.  How do we succinctly explain how the Cherokee nation, originally in Georgia, ended up in Oklahoma?  How do we explain the native cultures of the northeast and their interaction with French and English settlers, their involvement in the American Revolution, their assimilation into  American culture, and so forth?

More recently we could concern ourselves with the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans in 1942.  You would need to start by informing the reader of the fears of the average American, why they feared the Japanese any more than the millions of German-American or Italian-Americans at the same time.  And then finish it up by explaining who the Tuskegee Airmen were, and why they in particular were a breakthrough group in both race relations and military hierarchy.

People love to focus on some of the egregious mistakes the United States has made in its history.  That this mistakes were made is undeniable.  That every American probably should be aware of them at least to some degree, also true.  But when you are teaching 14, 15, and 16 year-olds basic American history, you have to give a rather high-level view of the history, an unfortunately very general view.  I would love to see a more comprehensive view of American history taught, but to do so would require at least two years and not just the single year now required.

I have read a comprehensive study done on texts used in American public schools, and reviewed many of the texts myself.  Their conclusion, as-well-as mine, is these text need heavy revisions.  But those revision do not include a much more comprehensive text, but mostly a more intelligible and well-written text.

The best thing any individual who believes our children are not taught as much history, or some particular history, should endeavour to insure that their own children are taught those portions first, then, see about getting public seminars in that particular area of history which they believe needs addressing.

Teachers can, and many do, suggest readings outside the assigned text.  They typically assign research projects for their students.  But the limit of a teacher’s ability to teach, is the student’s desire to learn.

It is too easy to complain about what you think is wrong.  But it makes a lot more sense to actively do something about it rather than complaining.

by

Why Can’t Hollywood Understand the Military?


I have just started watching the Showtime series “Homeland.”  The premise of the series is irrelevant to this except to say that one of the central characters, Marine Sergeant Brodie, was a prisoner of war during the Iraq War and was freed in 2009.  Sgt. Brodie is played by Damian Lewis who was 40 years old when the series started.   And that is the start of my problems with Hollywood.

Lewis plays a marine infantryman who was captured in 2003.  His rank is sergeant, the lowest non-commissioned office rank.  In the military, regardless of service, there is a policy called “up or out.”  Simply put, that means you must attain a certain rank within a set number of years of service.  A marine can expect to make sergeant in 2 to 4 years.  A marine who is full-time infantry can expect that rank in minimal time.  But this is complicated by who enlists in the service.  The marines, by far, are toughest on their recruits and, as any service, prefers recruits in boot camp who are no older than 20.  The reason is simple, as you get older you ability to perform physically decreases.   The character, Sgt. Brodie, would have been close to 30 at the time he entered the service.  It is likely the marines would have dissuaded him from enlisting in their infantry, and would have put him into a combat support role at best, supply, signal, etc.

All military organizations are conservative by nature.  The marines are the most conservative of all.  They live to fight and look good, and they do a really good job of each.  Marines, all, have one idea of a haircut.

The man above typifies what a marine haircut looks like.  They not only do it as a matter of personal pride, they do it because it is expected of them.  They do not make exceptions.  In the series, Sgt. Brodie looks like this:

His haircut would not only have been unaccepted to the Corps but to himself as a marine.

What kills me about Hollywood is that the military is really pretty easy to understand, if you take the time.  Uniforms do not change very often or very much.  Even so, each service has a regulation covering uniforms, easily obtainable, called “fitting and wearing the uniform.”  Not only that, there are thousands and thousands of veterans from every service and from every war for the past 80+ years who can expertly analyse such situations.  Why is it so difficult for Hollywood to find and employ such people?  Most veterans would be thrilled the help out so Hollywood could get it right.

Hollywood loves to use Army Special Forces and Navy Seals like they are in the thick of the fighting everyday.  That just is not the case.  Each of these groups has a very narrow mission each time it takes the field.  And that mission has a very short life as well.  That is part of what makes them special.  Most of the “action” in a war zone is conducted by regular infantry troops, armor, and artillery.  In “Homeland,” Sgt. Brodie is recovered by special forces which, while not impossible, but unlikely unless they knew beforehand they were seeking a particular target and need to get in and out quickly.  Otherwise, he would most likely have been discovered by a regular infantry group, army or marine, in the course of their normal duties.

While particular operations within any branch of the military are frequently classified, their day-to-day affairs, how they operate and what the look like doing so, is not.  I would really like see Hollywood, for a change, pay a little more attention to detail and get it right.

 

by

Taxing America — Killing the Sacred Cow


This year’s presidential campaign has had the candidates, and their respective party, sparring over taxes.  The thing is, each side is being disingenuous in dealing with the public.  Each side knows that the majority of Americans have no idea of how our tax system works.  They count on that so they can pressure Americans into thinking that their particular brand of taxing, or not taxing as you will, is absolutely the correct way to do business.

There is a New Hampshire PAC this year that is running an attack ad against a woman who is running for office.  They detail how she, when she held office, was responsible for raises taxes, fees, on New Hampshire’s citizens.  I am certain she did what they said she did but this group would like the public to believe that she was horribly wrong in doing so.  New Hampshire prides itself in having no personal income tax.  But New Hampshire, like all the other 49 states, needs a revenue stream to fund governmental activities that its citizens demand of it.

In this year’s presidential race, the Democrats are trying to make hay out of raising the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans.  Republican Ryan has countered that such a tax increase will fund America for about a day.  That is probably close to the truth but is it the point?  Obama asked why is it fair that Romney’s 14% overall tax burden just as fair as his secretary’s 20% percent tax rate, and that is the point, fairness.

As much as I like the idea a fairness, an idea, by the way, formulated by Ronald Reagan, it cannot be a prime motivation for any tax increase, or tax decrease for that matter.  Romney has claimed he will reduce taxes on middle-income America by 20%.  The question that has to be asked of that is, at what price?  That is, if you decrease you revenue, which a 20% decrease is obviously doing, what are you going to eliminate to fund it?  Romney is strangely quiet on that point.  The Democrats would be better served by promoting a complete tax code overhaul, rather than offering a single fix.  The tax code is so complex, so difficult, that probably few, if any, members of Congress can claim much of any expertise in it.  To wit, there are high-priced attorney’s whose only function is to be expert in the tax code.  No politician, regardless of how committed, can give such time to the tax code.

Government, at all levels, needs a source of revenue.  It cannot operate in such an absence.  There are two ways, and two ways only, to get such revenue, taxes and fees.  All Americans must understand that as a basic principle of government.  Republicans are fond of offering up the idea of running the government like a business.  But that in an impossibility.  But if the must, they need at least describe such a business as being a “not for profit” business which in essence is the only kind of business model any government is allowed to employ.  Those sort of businesses require benefactors, contributors, and maybe even gate receipts to survive.

In a recent debate between Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and his challenger, Elizabeth Warren, the controversy over subsides being allow oil corporations was brought up by Warren, who, of course, wants them eliminated pointing out the hundreds of billions in profits the oil companies make.  In response, Brown pointed out, also correctly, that the loss of the subsidy would be passed on to the American public.  What neither of the chose to address is what that increase at the gas pumps would look like.  Why?  They do not know.  For a short while, to be sure, there would be a public outrage but that would die down quickly enough and another industry would be showing the public the actual cost of a gallon of gas, not the subsidised price.  Americans would be forced, God forbid, to recognize the real cost of motoring.

Neither party, Democrat nor Republican, has had the courage to tell Americans that government is an expensive thing.  They seem incapable to telling Americans that if they want to continue the level of governmental services they receive now, then they are going to have to pay for them.  That means there is no chance for a tax reduction but more likely, at least for a short while, a tax increase for everyone.

The only reasonable way to control taxes is to control expenditures.  Americans need to look long and hard at each and every government service out there.  They have to decide which to cut back on, which to eliminate.  They need to become more knowledgeable about how the government goes about its daily business, contracts, government employees, the relative necessity of the service provided.  It Americans truly want to get the cost of government under control, there can be no sacred cows.

by

Friends, Present and Past


I just noted that my “friend” count on Facebook is 208.  I realize that for some people that is a very low number but for me, it is just about right, give or take a few.  I did a purge a few months ago when I had over 330 friends.  Basically, if I had never met you and had no desire to meet you, I unfriended you.  A lot of those friends were distant relatives both in miles and genealogical terms.  I have never met an “Osgood” who I could not find the connections, where our two family lines come together.  It mostly happens in the 18th and 19th  centuries.  My family first arrived in 1634 at Ipswich Massachusetts, one of three brothers, with the other two arriving in 1638.  From those three brothers literally thousands have descended.  And so, my Facebook travels had me coming accross many other Osgoods whom I have never met, although I would like to meet them.

Here is where I drag myself back to my real friends, as opposed to some on Facebook.  Way back when I was in the 5th grade, a new kid moved into town, and into a new house there.  I liked crawling around construction sites in those days and the men working there never seemed to mind me. Then came the day for the family to move in, the Youngs.  What I found out immediately is that they had a son my age, in the sixth grade, who I immediately took a liking to.  They had moved to North Andover from Saco, Maine.  I think jobs were tough up there, and there was a better market for engineers in this area.  Mr. Young had gotten an engineering job at the Raytheon Company Missle Systems Division in Shawsheen MA.

From that time on, and all the way through high school we were best of friends.  I saw him as my only friend but I did not feel like I need more.  Dave met and exceeded my friendship needs.

After I graduated high school, I started dating this girl from the next town over, Andover.  Her name was Helen Hurley.  Turns out, her family and my family had had a relationship that predated my birth but that also got me in good with her father as he thought very well of my family.  I had been going out with Helen only a few weeks when I suggested to my best friend, Dave, that he should really ask out Helen’s sister Maureen.  He hemmed and hawwed about it for a while before finally giving in.   And that, as the say, is all she wrote. They got married, had three kids, and were the perfect couple, at least as far as I could see.  They were great together.  It always felt good to have played a very small part in all that.

In 1996 the public high school I attended had its 30th reunion, and I went, which was the last one I went to.  I had no idea how ominous that event would be.  They actually combined the classes of 1966 and 1967 together to ensure a good turnout, and there was a fairly good turnout.  There were surprises, a guy we had known as Robert had become Roberta.  The usual stuff.  My brother was there with his girlfriend.  I attended alone.  I was divorced at the time.  But I sat at a table with my best friend David and tried to catch up.  It was a solemn evening because David told me he had an inoperable form of tumorous cancer.  Sitting there that November evening I do not think any of us expected we would be burying him a year and a half later.

But it was only a little over a year later, after the re-union, that my brother died quite unexpectedly, an unfortunate car accident.  He was working on his car in his garage, had the engine running but the damn fool did not have it ventilated.  My brother should have been my best friend, but he wasn’t.  I let him down.  I am the eldest of 3.  I am responsible.

Then on July 3, 1998, I had a heart attack that almost took me out.  The cardiologist told me this in strong terms.  Doctors like to have holidays off like anyone else and no surgery was planned for July 4 that year but my quickly worsening condition forced their had and they had to do emergency heart surgery on me.  The cardiologist informed me that I would not have lived out the weekend has we waited for Monday.  July 4 was a Saturday.

A few years ago I went on a search for a guy named Jim Camp who I had served with in the 25th Infantry Division.  I had lost track of him but we had been very close when we were stationed together.  I finally found someone who knew his story.  It seems he moved back to Florida, he was from there, and on the Thanksgiving Dinner table, Jim fell dead of a heart attack, right there.

I have taught each of my 3 daughters that you really only need one really good friend at any one time in your life, and I truly believe that. Dave and Jim were absolutely wonderful friends.  I can only wonder what sort of friend I was towards them, but I hope they saw it as good.

I don’t know that I have a true best friend these days, although I could really use one.  This is the person you can dump all your crap out in front of and have him respond , “so what’s the big deal?”  A good friend tells me when I am full of crap and warns me when I am screwing up.  That is a best friend.

But I have also had lots and lots of other friends, many of whom I love and adore.  I am not afraid to vocalize my positive feelings to these people but sometimes I get the feeling that such expressions are not always received well.

I am blessed to know so many good, wonderful, amazing people.  I think we should have a national “take your best friend out to dinner week.”  What do you think?