Thoughts

by

Entitlements Are Bankrupting America


According to the December 14 2012 issue of US New & World Report, nearly two-thirds of the U.S. Budget goes to payments of entitlements, social security, welfare, etc.  In 1960 that amount was less than one-third.  One of the biggest problems has been congress’s unwillingness to properly deal with entitlements.  At that rate our annual federal budget will, in the not too distant future, have 90% going out to various entitlement programs.  That fact is, we simply cannot afford to continue at this rate.  We have got to come to terms with the fact that we cannot be all things to all people.

Since its inception, social security has been the one entitlement program where Americans have contributed a portion of their income into it.  But the problem is, that money is not banked but used as funding for other federal programs.  This should be the first, and easiest, program to fix.  While I do not agree with the Republican plan to privatize social security, I do believe that the government should take that revenue stream, and through a dozen or so investment firms, set aside this money for future use.  Although I do not know, I suspect there is some federal law that prohibits such transactions at this point.  That can be cured by Congress passing a law that allows for the investment of social security revenue alone into private investment firms.  This would not resolve the short-term problems of social security funding, it would most definitely help in the long-term.

The next entitlement program that needs tackling is welfare and its various programs.  I think this program can be reigned in by turning over most of the program’s management and fund distribution to the various states.  Each state would be responsible for identifying individuals eligible for welfare.  They would also contribute, say 20%, to the funding of the program.  That all by itself should help with accountability in the programs.  Each month every state would submit a listing of those eligible to start receiving, or continue receiving, welfare benefits.  The federal government would in turn issue the checks.  But each state would be responsible for food subsidies to include who is eligible and how the program is administered in their states.  That state would submit its annual welfare budget to the federal government for payment.

We also need to end all forms of corporate welfare, particularly oil subsidies and farm subsidies.  The farm subsidy started in the late 1930s when the federal government needed to reign-in what and how much of any particular crop was grown.  Farmers, for example, had been growing wheat on land that could no long support the crop and driving down prices to a point where few people made a profit.  But since the 1950s, and the evolution of modern farming techniques, American farmers are much more responsible with what and how they grow their crops.  Farm subsidies are an anachronism and need to end now.

Where oil subsidies are concerned, Republicans claim that ending them will necessarily drive up the price of gasoline.  In the short-term, they are probably correct, but in the long-term market forces will help set reasonable prices.

Democrats need to take a much more pragmatic view of America’s entitlement programs if we are to ever get some control over the federal budget and the federal debt.  And for their part, Republicans need to moderate their demands away from the draconian and towards a form that conservatives and liberals alike can work with.

by

It Is Time For Stricter Gun Laws!


As a person who holds an advanced degree in U.S. History, I disagree with gun advocates who point to the 2nd Amendment as where the have gained the right to own guns.  The 2nd Amendment was only meant to allow for a fully armed state militia, as it clearly states.  This amendment was created as a reaction to British laws that attempted to limit the ability of any single state to defend itself.  That individuals can legal, and Constitutionally, bear arms comes from the fact that the US Supreme Judicial Court has never written a decision that in any way defines the limits of the individual or government with regard to gun ownership.  It is the absence of definition that allows individuals to purchase and own weapons as they do today.  The other nine of the amendments of what we call “The Bill of Rights” have had numerous and lengthy SJC rulings that have given very exacting definitions to each of those rights.

The entirety of the 19th Century, for example, there seemed little motivation or even thought over gun control.  America was largely an agrarian society where, once you left the cities and their immediate suburbs, law enforcement dwindled.  Moreover, it was not until the 2nd half of the 19th century that the more modern aspects of guns were invented, the metal jack integrated round, the revolver, the multi-round rifle, and finally at the beginning of the 20th century, the machine gun and fully automatic weapons.  But even so, for the first half of the 20th century, violent crimes were largely a product of urban America and with few exception, suburban and rural America were relatively free of such a burden.

In his book “Streetcar Suburbs,” Sam Bass Warner describes the economic movement of Americans from the city to the suburbs and beyond.  A large part of the reason was given to the idea of the mobility of the average American.  Where up to the 20th century most Americans never traveled more than 25 or 30 miles from where they were born, the advent of the streetcar, and then of course the automobile, change that forever.  After World War II the Interstate Highway System changed that dynamic even more.  Violent crime rapidly moved from the cities to the suburbs and now, as we have seen, to rural America.

Gun lobby people and gun apologists are going to claim that the massacre of Newtown Connecticut was unavoidable.  They will point to the fact that each of the weapons was properly purchased by an otherwise responsible citizen.  The irony there, of course, is that she was killed by a weapon she had purchased, something gun law advocates are quick to point out.  But is it reasonable to say that gun laws could have made this event avoidable?  Possibly, but short of banning the ownership of any weapons, there of course can be no guarantee.

I am a steadfast believer that Americans should be able to own whatever weapon they desire and in whatever quantity the desire without exception.  Sen. Diane Feinstein has already indicated that she will sponsor a bill in the U.S. Senate that will bar the sale of all assault weapons.  That bill is dead on arrival, guaranteed.  What is more reasonable, and necessary, is a bill that regulates the sale and ownership of guns.  A bill that spells out who can own a gun and what tests they must pass before gaining access to and ownership of a gun, just as is done with anyone who wants to fly an airplane.

But what I cannot understand for the life of me is why the NRA in particular is so against the formal registration and tracking of all weapons purchased and owned in the United States.  By their logic we should repeal all laws regarding the licensure and ownership of automobiles, airplanes, who can own them, and who can drive or fly them.  Each of these, cars and airplanes, has a set of physical, mental, and examination requirements to be renewed at regular intervals.  Why is it such a stretch for peace-loving, and peace desiring, Americans to require the same sort of thing for those who choose to own weapons?  As far as I can tell, the NRA is fully in favor of the irresponsible ownership of guns regardless of anything else.  What does that mean?

What I would like to see is at the time of the purchase of a weapon a person has to show his license to purchase such a weapon, that being the license to own fire arms.  He would then fill out a form that would tie the make, model and serial number of that weapon to a national data base.   That weapon would be directly tied to a particular individual until such ownership is legally transferred or the weapon destroyed.  He would sign a document that spelled out the requirements and responsibilities of gun ownership.  He would agree that he was responsible for the safe keeping of the weapon.  That if he sells the weapon he must notify his local police department of its sale together with the appropriate paperwork where the buyer would become the person attached to that particular weapon.  Gun owners would understand exactly what securing their weapons in their homes means and would agree to those terms.  They would understand that if one of their weapons, for whatever reason, was lost or stolen, they would be required to immediately notify their local police department together with the guns registration paperwork.  And while I would not put a waiting period on the time between the purchase of a weapon and the person taking its possession, I would require that each purchase be accompanied by paperwork that submits the purchaser to a background check and that if a person is found to have knowingly fraudulently purchased a weapon he would be arrested and feloniously charged.

The NRA loves to make the claim that gun regulation will ultimately lead to the prohibition of gun ownership.  They know that is not true but it works as a very effective scare tactic for its membership.  The NRA in particular, and gun lobbies in general, will never acceded to the removal of any sort of firearms from public ownership.  To that extent I am in full support of their desires.

Gun have one purpose only, to kill.  While in the military is spent many hours learning how to use my weapon, how fire it, how to clean, and how to keep it safe.  None of those things comes naturally.  All have to be taught and learned.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.  But the NRA categorically opposes any legislation that would require exactly that sort of regimen.  Why?

My desire is only to place in the minds of gun owns the extensive responsibility that goes with owning a weapon.  They must be well-trained as owners.  They must accept full responsibility for the safe-keeping of the weapon.  And they must submit to providing proof that all weapons in their possession are properly registered and account for as long as they own them.  It is possible that Adam Lanza, the gunman, may have been at least slowed down, if not stopped entirely had there been stricter, or any, regulations regarding the safe-keeping of weapons.  Although that is certainly not a sure thing, anything that gives pause to a person who wants to use a weapon on innocents cannot be a bad thing.

by

We Are a Rude Society


I think American culture has given up good manners for something else.  I have no idea what that something else is, but I do know it has happened.  For example, some years ago I was crossing the street, in a cross walk, a cross walk that also had a lit sign that said “yield to pedestrians.”  As I crossed that day a man in a Saab raced through the cross walk with me in the middle of it and just to put a point on it he stuck his hand up through his sun roof and gave me the finger.  I had not even given him a bad look!  True story.

When I was a child, as soon as Christmas was over my mother would sit me down at the dining room table and have me hand-write thank you notes for each and every gift I got.  She did it because it was the right thing to do and because it would teach me something.  It did.  At the time it was expected that a gentleman would always hold a door for a lady.  Anyone who was older than us was mister or misses, not to mention that we always called any uncle or aunt exactly that, their first name was only used after that notation.  We even had an “aunt” and “uncle” who were unrelated to us but calling them Mr. and Mrs. Damon just did not seem right somehow.  Plus, as a family, we were all really close.  Those things seem to have gone out of fashion and I can find no good reason to explain why.

You always sent your parents and close relatives birthday cards, Christmas cards, and other cards as called for.  Such things were not even discussed.  They were simply expected.  That seems to have fallen out of fashion too.  How did that happen?

Men always took their hats off when they were indoors.  It is not unusual these days to see men in restaurants wearing a hat.  Why is that all right?

People seem to think their cell phone conversation is so important that their talking loudly on their cell in public places is all right, particularly restaurants and other places where people are gathered.  Not only is it not all right, it is down right rude!  If you must have the conversation, take it somewhere that the rest of the universe does not have to hear it.

Too many young parents feel no responsibility in keeping their young children quiet, at least relatively so, in places like restaurants.  They also seem to think it all right that their child considers where ever they are to be their own personal playground and that running into people is an okay thing.  It’s not!  At least make an effort to control your children!

I have this old-fashioned belief that there is something to be said for men who act like gentlemen and women who act like ladies.  What does that mean?  It means that each person does his level best to always use the best manners possible.  It means recognizing that the world is not all about us, and that not only do other people have a right to be there, but have a right to expect to be respected.  People used to ask the question, “would you talk (or act) like that in front of your mother?”  We need to ask that question now more than ever!

by

The KISS Principle


I really like Gene Simmons but this is not about his band.  Nor is it about the affection one person shows another.  This is all about the process of thinking.  KISS is an acronym that means “Keep It Simple Sweetheart.”  It is really a very simple principle too but we humans seem to take great pride in complicating the hell out of just about everything.

I believe that just about every waking minute of our lives we are confronted with choices and questions.  Most of these we respond to in an automatic sort of way.  The answer is so obvious we do not waste a millisecond considering it.  And 999 time out of 1000 that is the correct response, the right answer.

But also every day, and numerous times every day, we are confronted with decisions that do require a varying degree of consideration.  One of the more common decisions comes when we are driving a car and come up on an intersection where the light has just turned yellow.  The correct response, every single time, is to stop, even when we are feeling rushed, late, and stressed.  Maybe even, particularly so at such times.  I believe we all know we should stop when we see the light turn yellow, but for some reason we decide it is worth it to take a chance of making it through the intersection safely.  But it is that one time in a thousand that we do not make it through safely that we should stop every time.  The simple answer here is, stopping every time keeps it simple.

We human love to think about what we believe is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and even next year.  Such thinking can, and many times does, lead us to obsessing over trying to plan or worrying about what we perceive the future holds.  We seem to go through this long list of “what if” which is an exercise in insanity as such things are almost impossible to predict.  The keep it simple principle says that you figure out what you can do, right now, about the impending situation and then put it out of your mind.   What is really important tomorrow is of little or no import today.  Having made the decision on how to proceed tomorrow we need to return our focus to what we are doing today.

Another situation is how we human love to think we know how someone is going to respond to us.  We, for example, would love someone to do something for us but since we see what we want of this person to be a “big thing” we decide that they will of course turn us down.  That is always a bad analysis even when we believe we have compelling evidence to support our perception.  The thing is, is cannot possibly know how a person is going to respond to and answer a question until you ask them.  The keep it simple principle says that you can never ever think you know how a person is going to respond.  And that includes when you do get the response you expected because until the other person has responded, you just cannot know for certain.

Another thing we humans love to do is over plan things.  A situation will arise that is particularly important to us, say a large get together.  We are responsible for planning the event but then we try to compensate for every conceivable situation imaginable.  But the two things we try to control are usually the most unreasonable.  First we try to figure out what everyone is going to want or need.  We drive ourselves nuts trying to accommodate all those perceived needs and desires.  The keep it simple principle says that you go only as far as is reasonable in accommodations.  A funny thing happens when you make a simple plan and stick to it, people will generally accommodate themselves to that plan rather than the other way around.  The second keep it simple principle says that where the weather is important to an event, do your best to choose wisely and then put it out of your mind.  Fabulous weddings happen on stormy days, even when everyone wishes for something different.  I picked the weather because it is one of the best examples of something we humans have absolutely no control over.  Our recognition of those things we have no control over helps us achieve the greatest success possible.

The basis of the KISS principle is focus.  When any sort of decision is in the offing, stay focused on that decision alone.  Avoid dragging in anything peripheral to it as that just tends to confuse things and cloud the decision-making process.  Always ask yourself how much you can do right this moment that will have an effect on the decision.  Once you have done everything you can do right now, let the rest of it go until you are either at the decision point or at a point when there is something else you can do.  The most difficult part of this process is accepting those things you have no control over.  But once you have done that, it is amazing the clarity you get with regards to your future.

by

How Are We to Take the Birth of Jesus?


I recently watched a documentary on the history of Christmas.  Little was said about the actual birth of Jesus in this program as it was more dedicated to traditions of the past 400 years or so.  But they did point out that there are two versions of his birth in the Bible, one in Matthew and a second in Luke.  Here is what it says in Matthew: Chapter 1, verse 18 “Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the power of the holy spirit. 19 Joseph her husband, an upright man unwilling to expose her to the law, decided to divorce her quietly.  20. Such was his intention when suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream and said to him: “Joseph, son of David, have no fear about taking Mary as your wife.  It is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this child.  21 She is to have a son and you are to name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.”  But Matthew fails to give us any details whatever about the time and circumstances of the birth.

Now in Luke, Chapter 1, verse 26 “In the sixth mont, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee named Nazareth.”  Gabriel tells Mary directly that she is pregnant via the Holy Spirit with Jesus.  This announcement is made in the “6th month.”  Now if that is the beginning of her pregnancy, as it sounds, the birth could not have happened before March, when many theologians speculate it actually did happen.  But, if its meaning is that Mary was already in her 6th month of pregnancy, then we are again left asking when the birth actually happened.

One thing most Historic Theologians seem to agree upon is that the birth likely happened in the early springs because of the reference to lambs being nearby.  And lambs are usually born in the spring.  But Luke tells us also that Caesar Augustus made a decree ordering a census be taken.  This too lines up with the springtime as historians have been able to date just such a census in the spring of that year.

Jesus is often referred to as “the light of the world.”  The early Christian church was renown for co-opting pagan holidays into one of its own.  The Roman holiday of Saturnalia, along with several other cultures, celebrated the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year, as the beginning of the return of more light to each following day.  Out of the darkness and into the light, as we like to say.

One Christian tradition has a visit by “the Magi.”  Who were these people bringing gifts of all things?  The Magi were a well-known group who belonged to a religious following called Zoroastrians.  The word magi is Greek for magician.  We refer to them as the wise men but more likely they were performers of some sort, men who read the stars, practicers of Astrology and Alchemy.  In this sense they were thought wise.  Today, we would think of them just a bit differently.  They are also sometimes referred to as the three kings, though it is unlikely such was the case.  Tradition has it the brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  It is likely they were travelers from Persia carrying such goods as a normal part of their trade.

Jesus was born in a manger, or so it is said.  A most humble place as manger is a French word referring to the place where cattle and sheep eat.  But its structure would certainly have lent it to usage as a place to bed a newborn.  But more like, then as today, Mary probably held the new-born close to her own warm body for quite some time, not just to keep him warm, but also to feed him.

But firmly within the story is the tradition of gifting.  The Magi, whoever they were, are said to have left gifts for Jesus which is a strong statement unto itself.  It says; this is what a person should do.  The great thing about this tradition is there is absolutely no requirement that you are a Christian or need to believe in Jesus at all to do it!  It is the simple idea of giving without expectation of return.  I give something to you because I think it will make you happy.  And seeing you happy is reward enough for me, I need no more.  I really feel that, more and more.

How do we take the birth of Jesus?  The angel in the Bible, who announces the birth of Jesus, wishes peace to all men of good will.  I think that is a marvelous starting place for everyone regardless of religion.  While O. Henry’s short story, “The Gift of the Magi” has a new take on the original act, it does teach us something very valuable for this time of year.  We give what we can to those we love because we love them, and in return we only want their love.  And that is the meaning of Jesus, plain, simple, and easy.

by

Did Pearl Harbor Have to Happen?


Seventy-one years ago today the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the rest, as they say, is history.  But did the attack on Pearl Harbor have to happen?  Hind sight is a great thing but history is rather predictable.  That is not to say that anyone at any particular time in history can accurately predict the future because of history, but history does teach us enough to make reasonable assessments of what the future holds.

Historians sometimes say that World War 2 was just an extension of World War 1.  That is because World War 1 really settled nothing at all.  All Europeans were simply tired of fighting and had ceased to care who won as long as the war stopped.  In 1917 the Russians, who had one of the largest armies participating in the war withdrew its armies as it engaged in a civil war.  That meant the Prussians could shift their focus from the eastern front to the western front.  But they were met by the newly arrived American troops and the stalemate continued.  Many in the German military leadership desired a negotiated peace with the allies but were told, mainly by the French on whose soil most of the war was fought, that only unconditional surrender would be considered.  This prolonged the war from the summer of 1918 until November 11 of that year.

About a year after Germany’s surrender the allies presented the Germans with the final conditions of surrender.  Of all the terms of surrender the worst was that Germany was required to pay reparations to the allied nations for the damages incurred.  This unnecessary and impossible condition doomed the German economy.  Hitler used that and a long-standing German mistrust of Jews to gain power over the German people.

In 1904 Japan tested its military when it engaged it was is known as the Japanese-Russo War.  Russia had pressured China into relinquishing parts of Manchuria and Korea.   Since 1894 Japan had been warring with China and took this as a warlike action by the Russians.  The losses by both armies at the end of the conflict in 1905 amounted to about 200,000 men but it brought to the forefront the Japanese military.  Until that time Japan had been a largely isolated nation run by the Emperor.  By World War 1, and even though Japan did not participate in the war, the Japanese were developing into the regional economic, political, and military power.  Japan, however, is a nation that has few natural resources necessary to create a world power.  The Japanese used the time from 1905 to the mid-1930s to fully develop an army, navy, and air force, as-well-as a formidable industrial base.  Its largest trading partner during these years was the United States from whom Japan received a continuous supply of both iron ore and scrap iron.  The U.S. also assisted in the Japanese quest for oil and rubber, both of which it secured from Southeast Asia.

The Japanese had never abandoned their desire to build an Empire in the east.  In 1937 they once again declared war on China.  The Chinese, however, had a very strong relationship with the United States and received military support from the U.S. in the form of arms and aircraft.  By 1939, however, with the world aware of the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army on the Chinese, the United States gave Japan an ultimatum to stop the war or face severe economic sanctions.

The Chinese had requested more help from the U.S. in the form of troops and naval support.  The U.S. Army, only 140,000 in strength, was hardly in a position to help in any form.  And FDR had told the American public, a very isolationist public, that he would not take the U.S. into any foreign war.  By 1940 with the Japanese showing no signs of reigning in their army the United States declared economic sanctions on Japan by ending all trade, most importantly were the raw materials Japan desperately needed to sustain its industry.  Because of this the Japanese had to quickly expand their influence in the far east to maintain those materials.  The response was the Japanese “East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.”  The intent was clear to all who were watching.  The Japanese had announced that they, the industrial/military power of the east, needed the rest of the far-east for its economic needs.  This gave Japan the impetus to extend its Asian war to what was then known as Indochina, today’s Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia where there were huge rubber farms and other raw materials.

When 1941 arrived there was a full-fledged fighting war in both Europe and Asia.  FDR had been visited by Winston Churchill asking the U.S. to enter the war.  American eyes were almost entirely focused on the war in Europe but most remembered the first world war and because of that wanted no part of European problems, as they perceived this.  Their eyes should have been equally committed to looking toward Asia but no one, including many highly placed government officials, saw any threat.

But in 1925 the United States had been warned of the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The informant was U.S. Army General William Mitchell who, at his court-martial, had not only told military officials that there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor, but who would do, when they would do it (on a Sunday), and how they would do it, an aerial attacked launched from air craft carriers of the Japanese Navy.  Sixteen years later, almost exactly from the day Mitchell made his prediction, the Japanese launched their attack.

Americans are famous for underestimating their own vulnerabilities and their enemy’s craftiness.   Even without Mitchell’s prediction, America had ignored its defense responsibilities.  Had the Japanese decided to invade the United States at San Diego, America would have been hard pressed to defend itself.  That same Japanese armada that attacked Pearl Harbor had plans to continue to the U.S. west coast.  Those plans were scuttled when the Japanese failed to account for the U.S. aircraft carriers.  What they did not know is that one of the three carriers they were looking for was sitting in San Diego while the other two were in the waters not far from Hawaii.

But for over four years prior to Pearl Harbor, first Japan and then Germany warred on their neighbors and showed no signs of letting up.  Even in its isolationist mode, America would have done well to enlarge and better arm its military.  It took America almost nine months to engage in any meaningful conflict with either Japan or Germany, longer than it had taken America to engage the Germans in World War 1.

Pearl Harbor was avoidable in the sense that America could have made a greater commitment to its defense which in turn may have given the Japanese more of a pause before they attacked.  And possibly would have warded it off entirely.  The Japanese military, and Admiral Yamamoto who commanded the fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor, were eminently aware of America’s possibilities.  When the attack did not go as planned Yamamoto is known for having stated that he feared Japan had only “awakened a sleeping giant.”

by

A Little Known Paradise


In 1941, when the Imperial Government of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was Japan’s reaction to the United States flexing its power by denying the Japanese access to iron and other materials necessary for an industrial country.  The United States was mainly reacting to the Japanese invasion of China and its repeated massacres of the Chinese people, particularly the “rape of Nanking.”

In 1944, the United States undertook a very ambitious operation to retake the western Pacific islands, the Marianas, the Marshalls, New Guinea, and other territories.  Most of these islands lie within 10 degrees of the equator, and many a small atolls.  The fighting the occurred on many of these islands was so intense that to this day live ordinance is still washing up on the shores.

In the early 1980s I had the good fortunate to work on one of those island atolls, Kwajalein which is a part of the Marshall Islands.  Kwajalein itself, though tiny, endured nearly a week of intense fighting before the U.S. won.  To this day a tank from the battle still sits where it became immobilized on a coral reef as-well-as a number of Japanese ships that were sunk in the Kwajalein Atoll lagoon.

kwajalein

kwaj

The runway in the picture above is about 1.2 miles long, to give you an idea of how small this, the largest in the atoll, is.

Kwajalein is the world’s largest atoll.  The maps above will give you an idea of its location in the Pacific and a map of the islands of the Kwajalein Atoll itself.  The picture is of the main island of Kwajalein, also known as Kwajalein, that sits a the bottom of the atoll.  It is also called the most remote inhabited place on earth.  That is because access to it is somewhat limited.  The islands tend to be under 1 mile in length and where most large jets require at least that for take-off, you must take a small aircraft to get there.  The Marshall Islands sit 2400 miles west south west of Honolulu and about an equal distance from Australia.

roi

In this picture of Roi-Namur the runway is 4000 feet long, and the island, as it lays along the reef, only about 1.2 miles long.

This picture above is off the island Roi-Namur which sits at the very top of the atoll and where I worked while there.  On the island of Roi-Namur sit two radars which track both near-earth and deep space satellites.  I was involved in the near-earth tracking station known at Altair.

roi beach

This picture is of the beach on Roi-Namur.  It is typical of the beaches to be found on the lagoon side of the atoll.  The lagoon is a relatively shallow portion of an atoll that sits between the islands.  An atoll is the coral top of an ancient volcano.  This being true, the ocean side of the atoll represents the mountain side which typically drop off many thousands of feet into the depths of the ocean around it.

The temperature varies between 76 and 85 on any given day year-round.  The water temperature sits at about 80 year-round too.  The island is basically immune from typhoons and other heavy wind storms because of its close proximity to the equator. While the storms may form near-by they move northward away from the islands well before the gain much force.  It is also nearly immune from Tsunamis because it lacks the gradual beach incline needed to concentrate the energy of the Tsunami into a large wave.  If a tsunami were to hit the island it would flow past it relatively unnoticed.

Many people for the U.S. have gone snorkeling on the coral reefs of the Caribbean and Hawaii.  But the coral of those places pale in comparison to the relatively virgin reefs of the western-Pacific atolls.  Although the Marshall, Solomon, and Caroline island groups each have plenty of resorts, they are so out-of-the-way that few people ever consider them.

The estimated population of the entire Marshall Islands in 2010 is only about 70,000 permanent residents spread among 29 separate atolls and another 5 individual islands.  Most of the islands do not allow automobiles.  The islands are all so small that travel on any single island is reserved to foot traffic.

The Marshallese people are  not Polynesian but Micronesian, a subtle but important distinction.  They settled the islands some 4000 years ago but their origin is unknown.  Today’s Marshallese are, unfortunately, almost entirely dependent upon the United States for their existence.  Since the 19th century they have been subjected to Dutch, German, and Japanese rule so that by the time World War II ended they no longer had the survival skills of their ancestors.  But they are a very friendly people who ask for little and are more than willing to give much.

The Kwajalein Atoll is a veritable aquarium of strange and exotic sea creatures.  The fish alone rival any that can be seen in the finest of aquariums.  There many types of rare and beautiful cowries, snail-like mollusks, hermit crabs, and even lobsters.  While snorkeling is was within arm’s reach of a large yellow-fin tuna.

cowrie

The picture above is of cowries native to the atoll.  Some, the tiger cowrie in particular, can fetch a hefty price on the open market.

Because of the nature of its business, defense, Kwajalein is not open to the public but other atolls in the Marshall Islands are and are equally as beautiful.  Majuro is such an island and an example of its beaches is below.

majuro

Relative to almost anywhere else in the world one can visit, the Marshall Islands may well be among the most pristine.  I cannot recommend them highly enough, particularly those of you who are truly tired of the crowded usual tourist destinations.

by

A Brief History of Thanksgiving


The American holiday of Thanksgiving is one of our most sacred traditions.  We trace it back to 1621 when the Pilgrims celebrated it for the first time.  In 1789 on November 26 George Washington declared it a day of giving thanks and prayer.  But it was not until 1863 that Abraham Lincoln made it into a federal holiday.  But I think the holiday deserves a bit of background that Americans are mostly unaware of.

Who were the Pilgrims? — This small group of hardy Englishmen were together as a result of a falling out with the Church of England.  That church was founded in 1534 when Henry VIII broke with Rome when the Pope refused to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boelyn.  The King of England had traditionally been the head of the Church of England when it was still Catholic with the Archbishop of Canterbury being its Cardinal to Rome.  When Henry broke with the Church, Thomas Cranmer, archbishop to Rome, broke with him and the English people followed willingly.  By the early 1600s, less than 100 years later, the English people were at odds with one another over the removal of “papism” from the Church of England.  At the time there were four general groups of Englishmen, those who held solidly to the beliefs of the church, those who sought to fix its perceived shortcoming from within, those who thought there was no way to fix its shortcoming short of radical reform, and the country’s remaining Catholics.

Those who desired radical reform were called “separatists” as they had no belief that even the smallest of reforms was possible.  They started holding their own services separate from the King’s Church.  This was prohibited behavior and their actions brought them no only condemnation from their local communities, but threats of imprisonment from the crown.  This group was headed by a fiery leader named William Brewster.  Brewster realized his people were in jeopardy and arranged for them to move to Holland where their religious beliefs would not be persecuted by the Dutch.  But by 1619 they had overstayed their welcome.  The Dutch felt them a drain on their economy and good will, and finally told them they had to leave.  Brewster arranged for his people to return to England but learned that he had a price on his head and would be arrested immediately upon his discovery in England.

A plan was fomented for his followers and he to make England a temporary stop prior to their departure for America.  They arranged the hiring of two ships, the Mayflower and the Speedwell, to take a large group to America.  The king learned of those plans and decided to take no action against these separatists with the exception of Brewster who he dearly wanted in chains.  The story goes that Brewster was well-hidden aboard one of the two ships when the king’s soldiers searched the ships for him prior to allowing the rest of the separatists departure.  A little over a day after the left the port of Plymouth England the captain of the Speedwell related to the captain of the Mayflower that his ship had become not seaworthy having “broken her back.”  That meant the main beam of the ship had been cracked.  This usually happened when inexperienced captains put up too much sail into the winds.  The captain of the Speedwell was hardly inexperienced.  The ships returned to England where alternative plans were made.  In the end, only 50 separatists were able to sail.  The other 50 members of the ship were tradesmen who would be necessary to the survival of the group, a carpenter, a farmer, a soldier, and others who had skills that would be valuable to their survival.

The Pilgrims destination was the Virginia Company’s settlement at Jamestown.  It being a purely commercial concern the Pilgrim felt, rightfully so, that their religious convictions would be of no consequence to the inhabitants.  The captain of the Mayflower, Christopher Jones, a very experienced seaman set sail on September 6.  The journey at the time would take 6 to 8 weeks which meant arrival in mid-October at the earliest.  Why Jones found himself in the waters off the coast of Cape Cod is unknown although it is thought that English investors in the Virginia Colony were not interested in having these troublemakers mixing with their people in Virginia and paid the Jones to dump them at some point north of that colony.

Arrival in America — The pilgrims first set foot in America at a point near present-day Provincetown Massachusetts.  They immediate set out looking for water as their shipboard supply was nearly gone.  They also looked for food as their food supplies too were extremely low and many of the travelers had come down with illnesses.  The travelers also had one new member.  A baby was born during the journey and named Oceanus Hopkins.  Captain Jones sailed, while this group was on shore, in search of a better harbor further to the west.  He recognized that the tip of Cape Cod was no habitable at the time.  When he returned he took the pilgrims to what we know today as Plymouth.

It was already November and the cold weather had set in.  While huts were being built on the land the settlers had to continue to use the ship for living quarters.  In the mean time hunting parties were sent out in search of local food supplies, deer and other animals that could be used for the winter.  They moved southward towards Cape Cod where they came upon some mounds that they discovered caches of corn and other food stuffs.  They took the food back to the new colony but in the process brought the possibility of hostilities from the Wampanog from whom they had stolen the food.  They were lucky in the respect that the tribe local to Plymouth, the Patuxet, were not overly friendly with the Wampanog and that alone provided them some relief from attack.

First year in America — The winter of 1620 to 1621 was a particularly harsh one for the settlers.  Food remained in short supply and disease ran rampant through the new colony.  By April 1621 nearly half of the 100 original inhabitants had died from disease and hunger.  The local Indians helped them to fish and farm during the spring and summer of 1621.  By harvest time, September, the colony had sufficient food to carry them through the oncoming winter.  The Pilgrims, a religious group still, decided to give thanks for their survival and settled up a feast at some date in October, near to harvest.  While turkey was certainly at that feast, it was not particularly prominent as it is today.  Wild turkeys, while plentiful, were smaller and a relatively unknown quantity to those early settlers.  More likely their table was filled with venison, fish, and lobster.   Wild turkeys are smaller birds than today’s domesticated version with considerably less meat making them a less attractive option.

The feast was certainly a joint effort attended by the settlers and local Indians but the Pilgrims were not dowdy in their dress as is often represented today.  We see them as this very conservative group religiously.  And by today’s standards they are, but at the time they were actually quite liberal and their dress was reflective of that.  The black clothing attributed to them is more rightly an attribute of the Puritans who arrived in Boston a decade later.  The Pilgrims had been exposed to the religion of the Dutch which later, in American, came to be known as the Quakers.  The beliefs of the Pilgrims can be more closely aligned to those beliefs.

To be sure, that first Thanksgiving was a party to celebrate just surviving that long as much as anything.  They were truly happy to still be alive having survived the extremely trying conditions during that first year.

by

A Day Trip to Damascus


Many years ago I was fortunate to have been stationed in Pisa Italy when I was in the army.  The summer of the year after my arrival, I decided I want to tour the middle east.  After touring Greece, I caught an airplane to Beirut Lebanon.  Beirut is a surprising gem of a city.  It is little known to Americans but is a destination of choice for the French.  That, in no small part, is due to the fact that following World War 1, when the European powers were divvying up the old Ottoman Empire, the French laid claim to Lebanon while the British were claiming its southern neighbor, Palestine.

The French, in turn, made Beirut into a middle eastern version of the Riviera complete with a casino.  I stayed in Beirut for four days.  I found the people of Lebanon to be extremely friendly and seemed to have no opinion on American tourists, probably because we were a bit of a rarity and had not offended them, yet anyway.  The hotel manager, one day, suggested I take the bus tour to Damascus, that I would thoroughly enjoy it.

Early the next morning I boarded the tour bus and quickly found a pair of Canadian girls, the only North American people on the trip.  Damascus is only 55 miles distant from Beirut.  At the time, the only road between the cities was a single two lane highway.  Upon arrival at the Lebanese Syrian border, the bus is boarded by the border guards who collected all our passports.  We were told that we were not allowed to get off the bus while our passports were processed.  That took a good two full hours which meant we were sitting in the desert sun for the entire time.  Nothing of note took place and once our passports were returned we continued on to Damascus without incident.

Upon our arrival in Damascus the bus driver informed us that we had to change to another bus to have the tour of the city, which we did.  It turned out there was a really good reason for changing buses but that did not become apparent until we returned.

Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the middle east and get mentioned a number of times in the Bible including a reference to a “street called Straight.”  The particular old Roman street is where Paul supposedly was converted to Christianity.  For someone who grew up where cities and towns had a history dating in the hundreds of years, it was really quite remarkable being at a historic location which counted its age in the thousands of years.

The picture below is of a cathedral located in Damascus that was built by the Christians during the era of the crusades.

In later centuries the cathedral was turned into a mosque and now serves as the central mosque for Damascus.  Upon entering, you are greeted by Persian rugs layered about 7 deep.  They cover the entire walking surface of the mosque.

Towards the front, as seen in the above interior shot of the mosque, is an encased area where the Moslem world believes the head of John the Baptist is.  It turns out, according to our guide, that he is considered one of the prime prophets of the religion.  Furthermore, our guide pointed out that in Islam, places held in reverence in the Christian world is held equally as highly in Islam.  These two things were eye-opening for me to say the least.  And as you can see, from the above picture, the interior of the old cathedral is quite as beautiful as it ever was, maybe even more so.

I was struck by the sight of Syrian soldiers who came to the enclosure as they cried while they prayed there.  After that they moved to a place next to the wall that faces Mecca and said additional prayers.  It was really quite a touching scene.

For the return trip, we returned to the bus that brought us to Damascus.  The two Canadian girls and I sat together but there was one problem.  When I tried to push my feet beneath the seat in front of me I found there to be an obstruction.  Upon inspection I found that skeins of fabric had been secreted underneath the seats to be smuggled back into Lebanon.  We were now part of an international smuggling ring!  Upon arrival at the border I jokingly said to my Canadian friend that we should probably report the smuggling operation.  She informed me that if the Lebanese did not kill me, she would! I had no intention of saying a thing and, fortunately, the border guards did not inspect the interior of the bus so the contraband was not found.  I have to admit, however, that we did have a number of anxious minutes.

I cannot say I have ever had any experience similar to this one in my life but I would not trade it for anything.  Furthermore, I highly recommend visiting these areas, of course only after the conditions in Syria settle down and life returns to the routine.

by

Taking the Train Across America


I have taken the train across the United States, Boston to San Francisco, both ways twice.  It is a trip like none other.  You do not have to be a lover of trains to truly enjoy the trip either.  There are not a lot of such cross-country trains, but they do exist.  You can leave from any large city in the Northeast to start your trip.  It is necessary, with one exception, that you go through Chicago to make a connection for the rest of the trip.

That one exception is a train that runs from Washington D.C. to New Orleans, and from there onward across Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to Los Angeles.  The only difference with this train, the link that goes from New Orleans to Los Angeles only runs three days a week while all the routes departing Chicago daily including all holidays.

One of the routes leaving Chicago heads in a southwesterly direction taking you through Las Vegas before reaching Los Angeles.  The next route, leaves Chicago for Denver, and thence through Salt Lake City before reaching the outskirts of San Francisco.  The fourth train takes a northern route traveling Chicago to Milwaukee, Minneapolis and then across the northern states to Seattle.

My trip started in Boston.  At the time the train left in the late afternoon and is named the Lakeshore Limited.  It travels through Worcester and Springfield Massachusetts before reaching Albany New York.  At this point the train is linked up with another train from New York City.  From there the train travels through Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo before reaching Chicago.  Unfortunately, the lateness of the day keep the beautiful upstate New York scenery from view, however that is remedied on the return trip where the train enters western New York in the early dawning hours.  This train is equipped with a diner, sleeping accommodations, along with regular coach cars.  The sleeping accommodations give one a private compartment for daytime travel.  Service aboard the train is friendly and the food is really pretty good, far better than anything any airline has to offer.

Once reaching Chicago you have a layover of several hours while you wait for your next train.  The Chicago station is an entirely renovated facility that is very clean and offers good restaurants and other places for people to shop or just lounge.

The San Francisco leg of the trip leaves Chicago early in the afternoon.  As with the previous train accommodations include coaches, a diner, and sleeping facilities.  But unlike its eastern brother, it also has several high level cars from which one can enjoy a 360 degree vista of the passing countryside.  This is particularly attractive after the train leaves Denver early the next morning and follows the Green River valley through some remote territory.  You go a long time with no road in site as you hug the side of a river with the valley walls sweeping upwards on either side.

The next morning as you depart Nevada you enter the eastern edge of the Rockie Mountains.  One stop, Colfax, is particularly close to Lake Tahoe, one of the most beautiful lakes anywhere in the U.S.  During this portion of the journey the train slips through numerous short tunnels before re-emerging in the gorgeous mountainous countryside.

Unlike air travel, people on trains recognize they are going to be in each other’s company for quite some time, and there is a certain friendliness that arises from these circumstances.  Even if you are making the trip alone, you will find many people who are more than happy to pass the hours in interesting conversations.

Also, as good as the food on the train is east of the Mississippi River, it is that much better to the west of it.  AMTRAK has worked hard to maintain some of the old-time romanticism of rail travel and its good food and friendly atmosphere.  On these trains, because of space limitations, you may well find yourself sharing your table with a stranger but that becomes an opportunity to meet someone new and interesting.  The waiters are polite and efficient, and you never feel rushed.

I cannot recommend that everyone try this at least once in their lifetime.  It is well worth the investment.