Thoughts

by

Basic Training During Vietnam


I was sworn into the US Army on February 19, 1968 at the Boston Army Base.  It was the beginning of a career that I could not have imagined.  At the time things were extremely hot in Vietnam.  The Tet offensive had occurred just a little earlier in the year.  We were bombing North Vietnam, and everyday the news reports coming back brought the war into our homes.  Honestly, I do not remember watching those news events although I know I must have because I have always had an interest in the news.

I joined the army in part because I had failed in my first semester at Boston University and not knowing what else to do with myself.  I had been working a job as a gas station attendant and I knew I could do better.  I just did not know how.  I also joined out of a sense of patriotism.  That came in large part because of my father who had served in the Army Air Corps in World War 2 in North Africa and Europe.

I truly loved the idea of the military regardless of what was happening in Vietnam.  I had tested extremely well on the Armed Forces Entrance Test and could pick and choose what I wanted to do in the military.  I chose officers school.  The choice got me assigned to Fort Polk Louisiana instead of Fort Dix New Jersey where most recruits from the Northeast went.

My arrival at Fort Polk had taken me through the south that was still struggling with desegregation.  On the bus trip from Lake Charles Louisiana to Fort Polk I remember passing by a bus stop where there were two water fountains within two feet of each other.  One had a sign over it “white only” and the other had a sign “colored.”  Jim Crow was alive and well at the time.

At the time, Fort Polk in large looked much as it had in World War 2.  All the barracks were still the “temporary” barracks that had been constructed at the start of the war when the size of the army increased greatly.  But that was where all resemblance to those days ended.  After a brief stay at the “reception station” where we got our uniforms, our military haircut, tested, given shots for various diseases, and had our personnel files started, we were marched, a euphemism for a merciless run, to our company training area.  I was assigned to B Company 5 regiment of the 1st training brigade.

We stood at attention in the company street while we were dressed down by our drill sergeants.  They told us exactly what we would do, when we would do it, and how we would do it.  We were then divided according to where we came from.  Two platoons consisted entirely of men from the south, a bunch of us were put in the “Yankee” platoon, while the remainder were put in the “odd ball” platoon for those from other areas.

Good basic training requires that the drill sergeant break us down as individuals so we can be rebuilt in a manner that meets the needs of the Army.  Any ego we had brought with us was determined to be detrimental.  Our ego was regained with successful training.  The start of breaking us down was their yelling at us constantly from the time we entered their company area.  They had also put us together as they did because they intended on pitting us against each other.  It worked.

After a while each drill sergeant took his platoon into their assigned barracks and told us what was expected of us in the barracks.  This included things like where we slept, cleaning the barracks, and fire guard at nights.  The barracks were entirely wooden and they were ostensibly guarding against a fire starting in one of them.  They also informed us how quickly they expected us to form up in the company area from our barracks once we were given the order to do so.  I can assure you, it was on the line of 30 seconds, maybe less.

He gave the order at that moment to form up in the company area and we failed, miserably, at least according to him.  At this point he said he did not want us dirtying his clean barracks with our dirty selves and ordered us to crawl under the barracks so we could attempt to complete his order successfully.  Each of these barracks had about a two foot crawl space beneath them that extended the full length of the building.  We went through this bit of “training” many times before we were finally allowed to go back into the barracks.  By that time we were exhausted and scared to death of the drill sergeant.  He had succeeded.

"temporary" barracks at Fort Polk

Army basic training at the time was about eight and one half weeks long.  We were told that we would not be allowed to leave our company area that first weekend.  We did not leave the second, or the third.  On the fourth weekend we would be allowed a day pass if we were the best platoon during our weekly inspection.  By this time we knew as the Yankee platoon we would not win and that was exactly what happened.  One of the southern platoons won, of course.  But that put a chip on our shoulders that we carrying the rest of our time there.  We had been brought tightly together just as they had wanted.

The other aspects of daily life at the time was first meals.  Today’s army has large modern mess halls where hundreds of soldiers are fed at once.  In 1968 each basic training company had its own mess hall.  It was a smallish building that could accommodate roughly 50 men at a time.  We were lined up at one door, pushed through the chow line, given about 6 minutes to eat and get out.  Lunch meals were always in the field which were generally “C” rations.  These rations do not exist any more.  What they were was a box that contained a can filled with meat and potatoes, a can of fruit, a chocolate bar, and a pack of four cigarettes.  I did not smoke so I could trade those for another guy’s chocolate bar.

From the first time we were marched out of our company area to one of the many training areas one of the drill sergeants sang out a marching song that we had to follow.  They had not problem taking us from a march into what in the military is called “double time.”  This simply means that we were jogging, full pack on our backs and rifle in our hands.  If we were not doing it right, which was usually according to them, they would yell at us that “Charlie is going to get you and you are going to die!”  Charlie was the euphemism used when referring to the Viet Cong army.  I do not think a day went by when we did not hear them yell that at us at least once.  It was not just a scare tactic.  It was the truth.

During basic training our contact with the outside world was extremely limited.  We could, of course, write and receive letters.  We could call home only when we were allowed to leave the company area because all the pay phones were on a different part of the post from where we were.  Of course there was no television so we were woefully unaware of what was going on in the world around us.

The first week in April we in the Yankee platoon we advised that we would be allowed our first pass off base.  But then, on April 4th, Martin Luther King was assassinated and a riot developed in Leesville, the town nearest to Fort Polk.  All passes were cancelled of course.  In the 200 men in my basic training company there were a fair number of black men.  I had arrived without any prejudices against black people but that would not have mattered anyway, none of had time, or the inclination, to show prejudices.  There was not a single such incident of that sort in our company to my knowledge.  But the death of King,  I believe, removed any lingering prejudices some may have had.  We had come to realize that we needed to rely upon each other and that in a combat position, our lives depended upon that.

We all graduated on a Wednesday in the last week of April.  Immediately following the graduation ceremony those men who had not previously known their next training assignment found out where they were going.  Over 80% of the men were assigned to advanced infantry training right there on Fort Polk.  They were also told that this was in anticipation of their going to Vietnam.  I was one of six going to officer training afterwards while the others had been able to secure assignments of their choice when they enlisted.

"Tigerland" Fort Polk, advanced infantry training

By the time we finished basic training we were still not ready to go to Vietnam but we had become aware of what a dangerous situation it was.  It meant that a lot of guys I had trained with would be in Vietnam by that July.  It was a sure thing many of them would die there as well.  But we were also trained that we could not think about such things.  It served no purpose.  I was very fortunate.  Towards the end of 1968 I was assigned to Korea which was considered an assignment similar enough to Vietnam that we were in no danger of being assigned to Vietnam afterward.

Basic training changed many parts of me.  It opened my eyes to a lot, and prepared me for the world that lay in front of me.

by

You Can Be Happy But Only If You Want To


I spent too much of my life being unhappy for no good reason.  I had plenty of bad things happen to me, which I was quick to point out, and I used those things as reasons for not being happy.  What a bunch of crap that was!

What I have found out at this end of my life is there are only a few things I need to do to be really happy.  But there are also a lot of things I need to be aware of that keep me from being as happy as is possible.

I used to do a lot of things that got between me and happiness.  First, I used to stare at the past and bemoan it.  What I mean is, I would look at the various bad things that happened and feel sorry for myself.  Instead of using them as learning experiences, I allowed them to take me over and rule my feelings.  What I did not seem to understand was that I could not do a thing about what had happened to me.  And if I did not allow the past to negatively affect me, it would not.  I also used the “what if” or “if only” in looking over my past.  I would say “what if I had done this” or “if only I had not done that” and generally sit on the pity pot whining.  What I should have said to myself was, “You know what?  What happened to you was really crappy.  Now, do all in your power to see that it does not happen again and move on!”

Resentments cause people more loss of sleep and more distress than is necessary.  A resentment is me drinking some poison when I think badly of someone else and waiting for them to be affected by the poison.  I know, it is nuts!  But that is what we do when we decide to cop a resentment.  What good does it do?  None!  But I have also found that too my of my resentments are me seeing something in some else that I hate because it is something in me I hate.  If I find myself heading towards a resentment these days I stop myself.  I have far better things to do with my thinking time.  Resentments are never happy things and I simply do not have the time to waste on unhappy things.

There are some other things I do to keep myself happy.  I seldom take things personally even when it appears someone is launching a personal attack against me.  I have found that most times those people have something else going on and I am a convenient target at that moment.  At such times I remind myself that most likely the person has issues they are dealing with and I just let the whole incident go.  I definitely do not get into a fight with them, and allow them to “win” if that is what they are after.  It does not happen a lot that I need to defend a position.

These days I truly believe that I know it is going to be a good day simply because I woke up that day.  That might sound strange, but consider the alternative.  I see the beginning of every day as a chance to enjoy something.  Most days I find lots of things.  Animals are always a great source of pleasure.  I simply watch them moving around doing whatever.  The question in my mind at such times is “what are they doing?”  or I simply think that what they are doing is interesting.  More importantly, I have found that my energy level is generally reflected back in the animal’s actions.  If I am calm, so are they.

I seldom get angry.  What is the point?  How many things can happen to me in a year, let alone a day, that require my anger?  The key word in that sentence is “require.”  I think it entirely human for anger to flare from time-to-time but it is how I deal with it that makes all the difference.  It is very seldom that I truly have any need to show or voice my anger.  When I feel my anger rising I am quick to ask myself if it is truly necessary.  Usually the answer is no.

I find it very easy to let things go these day.  Recently I have had some things stolen from me and I got angry over it.  I despise theft.  But after my brief visit with anger I work hard to get over it and let it go.  People who would steal from me are just sick.  There is nothing I can do about them.  More importantly, I let go of the idea long ago that I have much control over anything after I finish controlling myself.  This is particularly true of other people.  I can let it be known how I feel and that I wish someone to act differently but I cannot force them to acquiesce to my desires.  That means, once I have let my desires know, I let go of whatever it is that has prompted me to be vocal.  That means I usually quickly forget whatever it was that bothered me in the first place.  I have moved on to more important things.

When someone requests my help I usually give it to them.  This is something that makes me really happy.  I consider it a gift when someone desires my help considering they could request it from so many others.  Even more, I expect nothing in return.  And most of the time, I refuse anything in return.  That mostly happens when someone offers me money.  I am really happy that they simply say thank you.  That makes my time given them a gift.  There is an old saying, you have to give it away to get it.  Whatever I give to someone I find gets returned to me many many times over.

I have also decided that loneliness is generally something that can be overcome quickly.  Most of the time I know when I am going to be alone.  It is at those times that I have made plans to have something to amuse myself with.  Frequently that means I have a book with me.

I really believe that most home runs are hit when you are thrown a curve.  It certainly is true in baseball so why not in life?  When life throws me a curve, is that not a time for me to shine and show what I can do?

I think life is really mostly about what you make of it.  If you are going to be angry, morose, petty, vindictive, resentful, and a host of other negative things, you are not going to be left with much time to be happy.  Our negative feelings are just reminders that we need to be happy.

by

Our Politicains Are Brainwashing Us


Please note, I did not assign this to any particular political party, and that is because both major political parties are equally guilty.  This is not anything new either.  Political parties have been trying to do this forever.  It is not anything new.  The new part is their use of the media to convince people of the righteousness of their position.  At this point you are  probably saying that that is what they are supposed to do.  The response to that is an emphatic no!

In the early 19th Century there was a large portion of our country that was illiterate, and an even larger portion that had something less than an 8th grade education.  As time passed that changed, but political parties approach to the average American has not.  The Whigs, the Bull Moose, the Republicans, and Democrats have each partaken in a manipulations of the truth and outright lies all in an effort to ally people to their way of thinking, the right way according to them.

Democrats love to use the absolutism that green house gases are causing a global warm and they make sure you are looking at industrialists to take the blame.  The fact is, plant life itself causes greenhouse gases.  Democrats love to give that portion of the truth that bolsters their take on global warming.  What needs to be given is the whole truth along with what is in doubt and unknown.

Right now the Republican party is saying that taxing the upper 1% is being unfairly targeted for a tax increase.  Gov. Romney showed in his 15% tax rate that their statements are rather disingenuous.  They claim that it will stifle those who create jobs from doing that.  Really?  You mean they will no longer desire to make money so they are going to withdraw from all market, because that is exactly what you are saying since that 1% has little effect of creating jobs.  Companies create jobs and as long as any company desires to make a profit it will create more jobs to do just that but only as the market bears.  Thirty years ago that same 1% paid triple in taxes, or more, than is demanded of them today.  It was also a Republican idea to have a minimum tax.  Why have they run from that now?

Democrats are famous for their gun control moves.  Their problem is, they have never offered gun owners anything that resembled a guarantee that the individual’s right to own such weapons will not be impeded.  They would be better served by coming up with a system whereby those guilty of violent crimes spend a lot of time in jail and are properly monitored upon their release.  That done, then maybe they can offer ideas on gun control.  But if they do, they had better have an ironclad guarantee along with it.

Republicans chafe at the idea of increased regulation of anything.  Their claim is that we are overregulated as it is, and that government is interfering in people’s private lives.  They say they want government out of our lives.  Last thing first, you cannot get government out of your life.  It is a fact of life that has nothing to do with the type of government but rather mankind’s desire to live in a society.  Orderly society have rules and regulations to live by.  The more freedom demanded for the individual the more extensive the rules and regulations regarding those freedoms.  One of the purposes of those rules and regulations is to protect us from ourselves.  Humans can be extremely greedy, lazy, gluttonous, and other things that have the possibility of hurting others.  That is where governments come into play to protect the individual from the shortcomings of others.  It is that simple.

Today’s politicians take the current issues and become rigid in their position.  They do this successfully because they have convinced their constituents that theirs is the only correct position and to move away from that position, even slightly, is just wrong.  They take issues where 75% of Americans feel one particular way and because they are in the other 25%, and in power, they pay millions of dollars in advertising to change the thinking of the average American so it lines up with their thinking.

Politicians are also giving the appearance of being at the beck and call of the PACs that fund their reelections campaigns.  Again, these PACs do not have the public’s interest at heart, even when they say they do, but have the ideals of their contributors front and center.  Politicians allow themselves to be bought off by such special interest groups.  God forbid they should stand up to one of their sacred cows to stand with the people who elected them.

I find it incredible that the house and senate both to have ethics committees.   I see no proof that any of them have any understanding of ethical behavior.  One of the prime ideals of ethical behavior is that you do not give even the appearance of unethical behavior.  Senators and congressmen regularly not only give the appearance of unethical behavior, they flaunt unethical behavior.  For example, they should never accept any gifts from any corporation vying for government contracts, government approval, or any other government action that they have sway over.  But such action happen daily.  They allow corporations to wine and dine them at a rate well above the $25 a civil servant is allowed.  They take ride in corporate jets, get seats in very expensive corporate booths at sporting events, take gifts of all sorts and supposedly they claim that such gifts do not affect their participation in events that corporation has in the government.

The bottom line is, we as Americans need to do more thinking for ourselves.  We cannot allow ourselves to be swayed so much by the politically motived ads that pollute the airwaves at election time.  We must be willing to investigate the truth of any and all claims made by every politician, and when they do not line up with the truth, we need to make that known to the politicians involved.

Right now the Republican candidates for president are making all sorts of claims of what Obama did or did not do.  What they do not offer is how they were complicit in things not happening that should have or vice versa.  They are not the least bit forthcoming in their own failings.  And when the time comes, the Democrats will practice the very same less than honest portrayals of the Republican presidential candidate.

Americans need to understand one thing very clearly.  The president cannot make a single law, only congress can.  And while presidents make lots of claims of what they intend on doing, without the cooperation of congress, none of it will happen.  Quite simply this means, if you do not like where we are right now, look to congress as the problem, and then at yourself, to find the root of all our problems.  We do not live in a dictatorship and the influence of any president is rather limited.  Do not allow all the various candidates to convince you otherwise about the president or any other person they are running against.

by

What Women Really Mean When They Are Talking


Men are naturally stronger than women as a rule.  It is genetics and there is nothing they can do about that.  But they have come up with a measured response that has kept men at bay and in their control forever.  If you are a man and take a woman literally, you are either single or not listening.  Women have a way of getting what they want without having to directly ask for it.  I will give you a brief list of these words and phrases that have managed to confuse men into doing a woman’s bidding.

1.  Do what you want — Guys, this is not a woman giving you permission to go out with your friends to a bar.  She is not giving you a choice.  This is her way of saying that she has already told you what she wants to do, and if you know what is good for you, that will be your choice.

2.  Does this make me look fat? —  This is a trick question.  Guys, you cannot answer it directly as she already thinks she looks fat and if you say it does not, she will simply say, “but you think I do look fat.”  There is only one good answer, “What do you think?”  That, in reality, is the only thing that matters after all.  Now, if she does say something to the effect that she is fat, it is your duty to reassure her she looks great.

3.  Did you hear what I just said?  — Guys, unless you can repeat verbatim what she just said to you, take the hit.  She already thinks you have not been listening.  Apologize up front and for God’s sake, listen the second time.

4.  It’s all right — No it’s not!  This is another test.  This is her saying, “If you really loved me you would not think it is not all right.”  Do not take the bait.  Even if you have no idea what she really means, your only response is to suggest you talk about it.

5.  Do you know what day today is? — If she is asking you this question it means you are already screwed.  It is some important date that you should have remembered upon waking that day, and she is upset.  It is time to fall on your sword, look extremely upset, and beg forgiveness.  Women know men forget most dates they consider sacred, you know, silly dates like her birthday, her mother’s birthday, the day her favorite dog died when she was 15.  But whatever you do, do NOT say “no.”

6.  I don’t want to talk about it — When she says that, be afraid, be very afraid.  She really wants to talk about whatever it is, but she is pissed!  As you look at her, think of a female lion preparing to protect her young.  That is a fair approximation of her temperament at that moment.  To survive, you must become extremely sympathetic to whatever is going on and be very patient.  If you push, well, think of the poor animal that crosses that mother lion’s path.

7.  What do you think? — This is just her using a different phrase for “Did you hear what I just said?”  She does not want to know what you think.  She wants an affirmation that she is thinking properly and that you are in agreement.  Now unless diamonds, “Coach,” or Gucci are included in your response that is different from hers, she does not want to hear what you think.

8.  Do you think we could go out this Saturday night?  — Guys, unless you have a surgery scheduled that will conflict with this, your only answer is yes.  Not only that, you need to find out exactly what she is thinking, where she wants to go, etc. and do exactly that.  Your poker plans with your friends will not cut it.

9.  I’ll be just a minute — A woman’s sense of time was best described by Einstein as being “relative.”  You will be with her when she says this and it is entirely irrelevant what the actual time it actually takes.  That is her minute and you need to accept it.  And whatever you do, do not tell her how long she took.  In fact, you would do well to say something to the effect of how nice it is just to be with her.

10.  Do you think we could go to (insert phrase here) — Guys, she is not asking you a question!  Not really.  She is simply imparting to you what she wants to do and that she wants you to accompany her in whatever capacity is necessary.

These a just some of the hundreds of phrases, and variations of those phrases, that a woman says to a man.  Most of them can be called “faux questions” as they are really either statements or demands.  It is the man’s job to learn her particular take on each of these phrases and act accordingly.  Men who do not learn, or worse, will not learn, will be either alone or unhappy, and probably both!

by

I Am an Art Philistine


About the only types of art I appreciate are Impressionists, still life and portraits.  Things like modern art and all the other types totally escape me.  I look at some of them and think, “what am I supposed to make of this?”

This picture looks like it should be at the beginning of a television show like the Twilight Zone.

And this is an example of abstract art.  People really pay tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for this stuff?  I do not get it!

This piece was done by Child Hassam and is named “Boston Common.” I absolutely love this piece, and any number of others he has done.  This painting speaks to me.  It says so much.

Monet is another of my favorites.  His paintings always seem so serene, peaceful.   I can look at one of his paintings for a really long time drinking it in.  They always seem summery which is my favorite season.

My daughter introduced my to Mary Cassatt, her painting above, and I was in love immediately.

Renoir’s “study” of his subjects are fascinating.  I have never taken a course art appreciation so I do not know what he was thinking when he painted this, but that does not mean the painting does not suggest many things, it does.

I cannot tell you if Kelvin Lei, who painted this which is titled “By The Window,” is famous or not.  I can tell you that I really like it and that is my point.  I know what I like, and I know what I do not like.  My ability to appreciate other forms of art may be because of a lack of understanding, but I would not bet on that.  I have a good understanding of liver and how it is cooked, but I still do not like it.

by

Reduce the Size of the Federal Government


This may sound like a strange thing coming from someone who has voted for Democrats his entire life but it is something we really do need.  The most recent increase came with the establishment of Homeland Security as its own cabinet post.  I was particularly incensed at its formation, not because we did not need such focus, but because it disregarded an existing agency entirely.  That agency is the Department of Defense. I will explain.

By definition, homeland security has always been the domain of our armed forces.  But there have been certain restrictions with regard of how those forces could be used.  This restrictions are a part of our federal laws.  That meant we can use our armed forces as a police force only in times of martial law.  But the solution to that was not to create an entirely new agency, but to change the laws to make it possible.  There is not a single thing the DHS does today that our military could not have accomplished.  The most visible of all DHS is at our airports.  The idea of people in military uniforms was at the airports was undesirable.  The solution was to simply create a special uniform for those who were put into such situation so they did not look like other members of the military.  These people would specialize in just these sorts of duties.  But the duties would be easily transferable to the more traditional military duties.

That would have eliminated an entire agency as it exists today.  But I certainly would not stop there.  I think certain agencies can be folded into other existing agencies.  The Department of Energy can be fairly easily split between Commerce and Transportation.  The Department of Justice can absorb duties now assigned to the Treasury and Homeland Security.   Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services can be combined.  The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture can be combined.  And the list goes on.

I was a federal employee for 30 years, 11 active duty in the U.S. Army and 19 at the U.S. Department of Transportation.  I worked at one of the more lean portions of the government.  Even there, however, there was an overabundance of senior civil service employees which could have been easily reduced, even more than it had been.  Because of that, I certainly believe that this is true of every other agency.  That means there needs to be a definition of how many people at a minimum senior manager must have in order to retain their pay grade.  It would also give definition to how many of any particular pay grade can exist within the entire government.  It would not surprise me that people of the pay grades GS-15, SES-1 and higher have as few as 5 people working under them when a minimum of 25 or more should be observed SES grades and 10 or more for GS-15.  People in these grades typically jealously protect their fiefdoms.  They are wonderful at rationalizing the status quo but are poor when pragmatism is called for.  Additionally, minimum education requirements need to be observed for these pay grades, another thing that frequently does not exist today.  I knew of one SES person who had nothing more than a high school education.  He ruled over people holding master degrees and PhD.

I want to caution people about one thing.  A small  government is not a guarantee to a reduced level of funding.  At the federal level, payroll is a relatively small portion of the entire budget.  But to be sure, a smaller government will make it much more manageable.

 

 

by

The Immediate Need For Greatly Improved Public Transportation


When I was a kid, I remember my father buying gasoline for twenty-five cents.  That was in the late 1950s.  Then, in 1967 and early 1968 I worked at a service station where I saw regular gasoline prices at thirty cents.  But that was when we imported less than 50% of  our oil.  In 1974 we saw that changed suddenly with the organization of OPEC.  Whatever people may think of OPEC, it was formed as a result of American and British oil companies in the middle east indubitably sharing their profits.  The main American company was called the Arab American Oil Company, or ARAMCO.  Justifiably the hosting nations took exception to the many decades of foreign oil interests in their countries.  Our import oil prices doubled which led to a quick increase at the pumps, from an average of 35 cents to 55 cents.  I remember rationing and long lines at the oil pumps.  The 24-hour service station temporarily ceased to exist in many places.  That meant traveling at night required a lot of planning when you were going long distances.  At the time I was traveling from Virginia to Massachusetts.

I do not see such things happening again in our immediate future but it is in our future.  There is no debate that it will happen, just when it will happen.  America’s foray into the world of alternative sources of portable energy have been slow, mostly because at present the demand for such vehicles is still small.  Also, Americans have adjusted to increasing oil prices rather smoothly and without a lot of complaint.  The American love affair with the automobile has yet to end but it has been altered slightly.  The old behemoths of the roadways are largely a thing of the past although relative gas economy really has not increased all that much.  Large and mid-sized American cars are still wont to get much over 22 miles to the gallon in urban operation, and not a whole lot more in highway driving.  For as much as automobile companies like Toyota and Honda boast about how economical their small car are, are they are, they still pale to known possibilities.  But the known possibilities, electric primarily, lack for power and are somewhat limited in their distances.  The problem is a simple one, once you leave your home with an electric automobile, the availability of a place to recharge you automobiles batteries are minimal.

That said, we have in place, somewhat, a public transportation system that can to some degree offset the use of automobiles.  Unfortunately, most of the public does not understand the basic necessities of building, operating, and support of a comprehensive public transportation system.   Simply put, Americans are spoiled by the Interstate highway system and lack confidence in the present public transportation system to fill their needs.  The lone except to this are their airlines.  Americans are very knowledgeable where airlines are concerned.

I read in the Boston Sunday Globe today that a plan for high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco is meeting with a high degree of opposition.  Cited as the reasons are the high price of building such a rail link and the link’s lack of service to many of California’s major cities.  It is obvious to me that the people have missed the most basic idea of the rail link, how to provide high-speed, in excess of 120 MPH, service between its two largest cities.  The planners knew that building such a link along the coast, which would link most of California’s major cities, would have been unreasonably costly.  But putting the line up the central valley and avoiding the coastal mountains, allowed a much lower price tag and a sure way to gain the high speeds necessary to make it a true high-speed rail link.

America trails the rest of the world in high-speed rail and other forms of public transportation.  It is understandable that people living between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River may not see the need for increased public transportation in their areas.  But the  people in the rest of the country absolutely need it and sooner than later.  Our day of gasoline reckoning is much closer than many want to admit but when it gets here unless we have made proper plans, we will be hurting for a long time.

Let me be clear on one point.  Public transportation systems almost without exception bring in less than 50 cents in revenue for every dollar spent.  Most public transportation systems have not covered their operating costs since the 1950s and some even before that.  That means tax dollars make up the difference.  We have to accept that for our future and learn how to properly fund our public transportation.  What every American has to understand that public transportation exists for the common good.  There is a trade-off regardless of what you support.  If you decease public transportation then you necessarily increase the use of private cars on our streets and highways.  Those are your only options.

All of our urban transportation systems were designed in the early 20th Century when most Americans lived in urban areas.  The mass production of the automobile shifted our population centers and created the suburbs.  In the early 1900s when you left the city you were almost immediately in the country.  That is no longer true.  If you look at the rail route from New York City to Philadelphia you find almost a continuous urban and suburban type of population.  In 1900, you left New York and Newark urban areas and went into the countryside until you reached the small city of Trenton.  Then back into the countryside until you reached Philadelphia.  There is virtually no countryside left along that stretch with the invention of the suburbs and their linking highways.  Even more, the now populous urban centers in Florida, Texas and California were virtually non-existent in 1900.  In the case of California, an extremely well planned and extensive public transportation system was virtually dismantled by 1960 and has cost the state billions of dollars to just start its recreation.

In the early 1990s U.S. transportation planners gathered and invited urban planners from Europe and Japan to help identify and plan a comprehensive U.S. system of public transportation.  All forms of public transportation were taken into consideration to include bicycles and pedestrians.  To put this all in perspective, the U.S. is roughly 3.7 million square miles and Europe is roughly 3.9 square miles in area but there is no comparison between the two in transportation.  While the U.S. has a vastly superior road system, it has a vastly inferior public transportation system.  To be fair, the population of Europe is more than double that of the U.S.  But that only excuses the U.S. relative to those areas west of the Mississippi.

Massachusetts has invested billions of dollars in its public transportation systems, primarily the MBTA which now carries more than $3 billion in debt.  The MBTA is threatening serious service cutbacks if the status-quo is maintained.  At the heart of the problem is an aging system, both in infrastructure and equipment.  Reductions in service only provide a disincentive to the public to use the system.  The MBTA, of course, is not the only system that is being forced into making such decisions.  People want a high level of public transportation but do not understand how much it costs to maintain such a system.  Large fare increases can only be offset but increased tax subsidies.  Such subsidies are generally collected at the gas pump in the form of state and federal taxes, and sometimes city taxes.  People in urban states wonder why their gasoline taxes are higher than the more rural states and this, along with road maintenance, is precisely why.

the AMTRACK system has been under attack almost since its inception.  It has been threatened with elimination numerous times if it did not cover its operating costs with its fares.  Such a suggestion is ludicrous.  It also goes against the basic premise of public transportation, a service for the public good.  Long distance AMTRACK service has been the most seriously attacked.  Such attacks are penny wise and pound foolish.

People need to understand that the standards used for freight service and passenger service are extremely different.  The standard for passenger service requires a certain type of rail be used and that the rail be at a particular condition as regards the speed of service allowed.  That is, while freight service at speeds between 40 and 60 MPH maximum are acceptable along a particular route, passenger service along that same route at such speeds is unacceptable and unsupportable.  The concerns for the right-of-way in determining the speed at which a passenger train can travel is the weight of the rail per foot, the age of the rail, the signaling available, the upkeep of the rail bed, and the straightness of the rail.  Freight trains can operate safely in lesser conditions.

Then there is the capital equipment needed.  A single six car train with a diesel-electric engine can cost close to $5 million or more depending on use.  They have a lifetime of about 20 years.  They must be maintained and maintenance costs for any particular piece of equipment necessarily goes up with age.  Again simply put, imagine yourself having to maintain a car you bought in 1992.  That is exactly what many transportation systems are having to do with the rail and bus equipment.  It defies logic except that funding for new equipment is not supplied.

I am putting this in terms of rail transportation because railroads are abandoning rail lines that are no longer profitable.  The thing is, some of these lines are extremely desirable in terms of inter-city and long distance passenger travel.  But once abandoned, these rights-of-way will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to resurrect.   Not only that, the cost of bringing a line in disuse to a level where passenger service is viable is very expensive and that price will only increase as time goes on.  What I am saying is that even minimal service along many routes is desirable in the long-term.  Those long distance trains that ply rural states such as Montana and Wyoming may seem like a waste of funding but they are not.  There is a level of maintenance that is happening that when the need for these routes increases it will be no great problem to increase service along them.  That day will come.  It is not an “if” but a “when.”

There are three investments which need to be made now.  The first is in urban transportation, the second in inter-city transportation, and the third in long distance transportation.  The price tag will be in the many tens of billions of dollars per year but it is an investment that will yield large returns for all Americans.  Such investments will reduce the wear on our roads and highways.  It will decrease our need for imported oil.  It will guarantee us a via transportation system in an emergency.  It is a delayed gratification benefit which is always one of the best benefits anyone can experience.

by

Who Is This God And What Does He Want?


I was brought up in the Roman Catholic tradition.  But you will not hear from me that I am a recovering Catholic or any other such silliness.  The fact is, I highly respect people of great faith regardless of their religion.  To say that I am recovering from some religion would be to say that religion was a bad thing which in my case is not true.  But it is also fact, now, that I have become an agnostic.  I do believe that there is some sort of power that permeates the universe but I cannot assign that to a supernatural being or any being at all.  I am unconvinced but not unconvinceable.

When I was a kid I was informed of the laundry list of reasons I would end up in hell if I did any of those things.  I did not question such things.  I had problems with the Catholic Church starting at age 15.  When I reached 21, or there about, I temporarily divorced myself from it.  I looked around at other religions for a while and then settled back on Catholicism.  It was the religion I was most comfortable with.  Still, I was holding onto what I had been taught where God was concerned.

In Boston there is a corner, Tremont and Park Streets, that is known as brimstone corner.  That is because the ministers who used to rule at the Park Street Church frequently elaborated in a “fire and brimstone” manner.  That is, they were constantly reminding their followers of the terrible place hell is and how they were bound to end up there if they did not do as they were instructed.  It seems that the Catholics were not the only ones preaching in such harsh terms.

I have since decided that if God does exist, and he exists at “the Father,” which implies parenthood, then he necessarily takes on the accepted roles of parenthood.  That leaves only the question of what are those roles?  As a parent I know that I love my children unconditionally and without exception.  I could not more disown them or forget about them than I could turn lead into gold.  But we are presented with the God character who does both!  How does that make sense?  Many are presented with this “vengeful God.”  Really?  Why would any parent want vengeance on his own children?  Again, it is illogical.  The only aspect of such thinking I find at all plausible is the one that offers a God who punishes his children.  That is something a parent would do.  But even so, were any of my children to break my most important rules I would never have a punishment that permanently pushed them away from me.  What kind of loving person does that?

Now that brings up the “loving and forgiving God.”  If there is a God this is the only incarnation that makes any sense at all.  We as parents do not reward bad behavior but we do not ever condemn our children to anything that is remotely hopeless.  Why would we?  Would that not make us bad parents?  Would that not be setting a bad example?

I do strongly believe in Jesus and his teachings.  Now that may sound as a bit of a contradiction but I can assure you, it is anything but.  Jesus was a real person who did walk this earth.  He set as good an example of how to live a good life as anyone who has ever lived.  He instructed people to follow his example and his example was always above reproach.  You can take his philosophies and apply them in the absence of a religious following and you still have excellent advice.

I think all people would do better if they looked at the Bible as a collection of semi-historical recollections and philosophies.  If you look at the Bible that way then it becomes very easy to explain and accept most things that are in it.  The authors of both old and new Testaments were never the writers of the same.  Remember, in those days, scribes were used to take down the words of authors.  Scribes, being human, made mistakes.  And the authors, even in their most conscientious attempts to relate events and the words of the people in those events, had to rely upon their own recollection.  Being human, they did not have perfect recollections particularly of events they did not witness.  Most books of the Bible were written long after the events described had occurred.  I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Bible, I am only saying that words are most often the author’s own interpretation of events or of the words of others.

I do believe that if you read any paragraph, particularly in the New Testament, you must ask yourself what the overriding sentiment of that paragraph, or series of paragraphs is.  Then you need to ask yourself, could there be a second or third interpretation of the same words.  If you are honest about it, you necessarily have to agree that there are indeed many possible interpretations and that what we as an individual think to be true is all right for us but we cannot, in good conscience, decide that ours is the best or only interpretation that is right.

It is my belief that the major religion in the world today, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are far to rigid in their beliefs of what this God is.  As of today, none have proven to me that there is a God, much less what we should think of such a being.  They do not make a compelling argument about this “all loving” being.  I honestly believe that their descriptions of this God, if he were to materialize on Earth, could easily be brought up on charges of abuse and neglect.  But I cannot see that such a God can actually exist.  My God sounds a lot like Jesus.  I think he could also, if I understand him properly, be Mohammad.

Finally, I believe that if there is a God, he has had nothing to do with any floods, lightning bolts, military victories or losses, temples being built or destroyed, people being punished on Earth or people being rewarded.  My God, if you could ask him the question would respond, “Look, I got everything started.  I love each of you equally and no one more than another.  I have never interfered with anything you have done.  To the contrary, I have been interested in seeing how well you all play together.  How do you think you have been doing?  Have you been taking good care of one another?”

by

Health Care


I like to keep my blog as non-political as I can but this is something that really bothers me.  I also want to say that I am apolitical.  That is, I really do not like U.S. politics as proffered by either major political party today.  I think they are grossly out of touch with the average American and that both parties play on the fears of the average American.  I am prefacing this that way because this posting will have a more liberal bent to it but I want it to be clear, I do not trust the Democrats any  more than I do the Republicans.

The South Carolina Republican primary is today.  I have seen on news reports a lot of Republicans are pushing for the repeal of the latest health care reform, or as they euphemistically call it, Obamacare.  So here is what I do not get.  Why?  This bill has cost the average American absolutely nothing.  Taxes did not go up because of it.  No one who already has health care was required to change a thing.  The only thing it has done so far is open up health insurance to many who did not have it.  I realize that in another year it is going to require it of all Americans but why is that a bad thing?

We have had mandatory health care here in Massachusetts for a number of years now.  I have always had health insurance so it did not affect me in any way.  Massachusetts set up what is called Mass Health.  It is a system where those who were uncovered can go and buy health insurance at an affordable rate.  The effect, of course, is that people who were formally wont to visit a doctor or get proper medication, can do so now without fear of financial distress.  Doctors and hospitals like it better because now they do not have to write off nearly so many unpaid bills, many of those formerly for people living in poverty.

Why then, would any sane person want to block any American access to health insurance?  This is not a socialist move, as many have stated.  It is a move to help upwards to a third of our uninsured public get better health care.  Even worse, the Republican party has offered absolutely no alternative.  Had they said, for example, they favored a free clinic program, whereby the government invested in setting up and funding such clinics around the U.S., that would be an alternate.  But they have simply said no, we do not want all Americans to have equal access to what is billed as the world’s best health care system already.  And just to put a little perspective on that, the United States is currently ranked 36th by the World Health Organization in its health care.  We are behind a bunch of 3rd world countries.  What does that say about us?  The richest nation in the world, number 1, is only 36th in a very important statistic?  That is both unconscionable and unacceptable.

During the FDR administration it was recognized that too many Americans lacked certain basic needs, electricity and a retirement plan.  Both were resolved and are in place today.  Why then is a basic right to good health care a problem?  It should not be.  It is time for the Republican party to get off the dime, and if they do not care for Health Care Reform as it is, which they say they do not, then it is their responsibility to offer an alternative that creates the same result.

by

Reducing the Size of the Military a Big Mistake


I remember some years ago hearing that the 26th Infantry Division was going to be reduced to a single brigade.  The 26th, the Yankee Division, was the army component of the Massachusetts National Guard.  At the time I did not think too much about it.  I recognized the desire of many to reduce the size of the military.  The mistake in my thinking was that the reduction was coming at the expense of reserve units.

Let’s start with the active duty force.  There are about 522,000 men and women in the army today.  During the Vietnam era the army was more than a million men and women strong, to put this in perspective.  After Vietnam, as was true after every other war, the size of the entire military was reduced.  But what is different this time?  The difference is simple.  There was no military build-up during Iraq and Afghanistan.  To meet requirements the burden was shifted to Army Reserve and National Guard units.  And it was early in Iraq that it was realized how unprepared the National Guard units in particular were.  That has changed.  The point is, our active duty force was too small to handle the ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Now our politicians have pressed the Pentagon to reduce an already lean active duty force.

I expect the Pentagon will push back by suggesting how to further reduce reserve and national guard forces.  This is a very dangerous tact.  The reason is very simple.  Regardless of how mechanized, how computerized, how modernized you make our armed forces, it still comes down to soldiers, not computers and machines, to win the wars.

I am certain that the Pentagon will push to keep our reserve forces better trained than they were prior to Iraq.  If there is one thing Iraq taught us, it is that our reserve forces were poorly prepared for extended active duty.  One has to remember, these forces train one weekend a month and two weeks during the summer.  That limits how much training you can do regardless of how hard  you try.  To think you can take these forces from their peacetime reserve status and throw them into a wartime stance as quickly as you can an active unit is absurd.  Short of doubling the training time allotted to the reserves, you are going to need a substantial ramp up period from peacetime to wartime stance for any reserve unit.

I think if anything our active ground forces need to be increased.  I think a 200,000 man increase, to about 750,000 troops is much more reasonable and gives us a much better defense force.  An additional investment into increasing the size of our reserve forces is also called for.

A standing army has always been an expensive item.  People are quick to look at the defense budget and think it is bloated.  I can assure you, nothing is further from the truth.  Another thing Iraq made painfully obvious was how woefully underfunded our reserves were.  They had too much obsolete equipment or equipment requirements that had not been filled due to budget constraints.  Having a well equipped army is not something that we can compromise on.

It is impossible to predict when and where the next conflict we will be involved in.  It is just as impossible to predict how much of a force we will need.  We cannot afford to be penny wise and pound foolish with our military.  We have to be fully prepared to meet the demands on our military in the future.  We can only have that with a reasonably sized military.