National No Name-Calling Week

I was checking my online database of daily/weekly/monthly observances this past weekend and discovered that - lo and behold! - today is the start of National No Name-Calling Week - a week organized by educators and students to end name-calling and bullying in schools.

No Name-Calling Week was started in 2004, inspired by James Howe’s novel The Misfits about students who, after experiencing name-calling and bullying, run for student council on a No Name-Calling platform. And it's appropriate (if unfortunate) that we should need a week dedicated to the eradication of childish name-calling and boorish, bullying behavior.

It's especially unfortunate that we need such a week because one of the worst offenders in the realm of childish name-calling happens to sit in the chair once occupied by the likes of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Yes, when the President of the United States stoops to snidely and childishly taunting "Cryin' Chuck," "Pocohontas," and "Crooked Hillary," something is badly amiss.

So, Dear Readers, why not send your tweets to @realDonaldTrump ... or even write him a letter or an e-mail ... and suggest that he grow up and set an example for the nation's children ... and adults ... by stopping his use of childish name-calling and bullying, if only for one week. Just tell him to be best.

Have a good day. Don't resort to name-calling. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Things We Don't Learn Any More

When I was growing up, my parents insisted that we show respect and good manners. They set the example, and expected us to follow it.

Nowadays, I don't think that there are many parents who themselves know how to show respect and good manners, and many of them certainly aren't passing them on to their children. Among the lessons they aren't passing on are the ones noted in this article I found yesterday -10 Things That Used To Be Basic Manners That Kids Today Have Never Learned ... with my commentary, of course ...

1. Basic words of courtesy. Words like "please," "thank you," and "you're welcome" are in short supply nowadays, and even pleasant greetings like "good morning" and "good evening" don't often make an appearance. Being pleasant and respectful toward people evidently diminishes one's "street cred," or creates a sense of putting oneself in a subordinate position to others.

2. Taking care of your appearance. I can't imagine what sort of impression some people want to make when they have their pants hanging halfway down their backsides, or a baseball cap worn at a stupid angle. I don't put on a coat and tie to make a simple trip to the store, but I at least try not to look like Freddie the Freeloader when I go out.

3. Proper posture. I was always taught to stand up straight. Not only does it make a better impression, but it turned out to be very useful when I got into ballroom dancing, and my good frame (dance posture) helped compensate for my many footwork mistakes.

4. Sending handwritten thank-you notes. Most people don't even know cursive writing any more, so this one's not surprising. Sending a thank-you e-mail is more-or-less okay in today's technical world, but not sending a thank-you at all, or doing it by SMS, is pretty gauche.

5. Table manners. I'm sometimes guilty of putting my elbows on the table, but I do try to use the good table manners my parents taught me. It's pretty shocking to see how some people in restaurants comport themselves while they eat.

6. Rising when an older person enters the room. I was always taught that it was a sign of respect to stand up when an older person or a lady entered the room. You don't see that much any more, and I seldom see anyone stand up for a lady. This may be a function of our drive for gender equality in all things, but I still think it's sad.

7. Sitting with your ankles crossed. This one applies more to ladies, and I'm not sure that I agree that this is a problem any more ... or perhaps I just associate with ladies who have been raised in a more genteel home.

8. Taking off your hat indoors. Well, who wears hats any more, except for those idiots who wear cockeyed baseball caps? Just take it off, okay?

9. The woman decides when the night ends. It's always good when the lady gives a signal what she expects ... it can save a lot of agony and embarassment.

10. "Make an offer." I'd never heard of this one ... I was always taught that if I asked a lady out, I should expect to bear the cost of the date. Nothing wrong with "going Dutch," but I would never expect someone I'd asked out to offer to pay part of the cost. Maybe it's just me.

Are there any other lost signs of good manners that you have noticed? Leave a comment.

Have a good day, and use respect and good manners. It doesn't cost extra.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

What Climate Change Reveals

The fact that some stubborn people don't acknowledge the existence of climate change doesn't make the effects of that change any less real. And those changes are not just reflected in melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns.

A few days ago I read this interesting article on the BBC website: There Are Diseases Hidden in Ice, and They're Waking Up. Yes, Dear Readers, as the climate warms, the warmer air is melting soils that have been frozen for thousands of years, protecting ancient bacteria and viruses that have lived on in the cold and dark. As the soils melt, they are releasing dormant viruses and bacteria to which modern humans may have no natural defenses ... and that's the serious question the article asks:

"What would happen if we were suddenly exposed to deadly bacteria and viruses that have been absent for thousands of years, or that we have never met before?"

What, indeed?

But the effects of changes in the climate aren't limited to the air and the ground and ice caps and the oceans. How about the effects of political climate change?

As our political climate has heated up, it has given new life and acceptability to all sorts of ancient viruses - racist attitudes, economic inequality, religious bigotry, rejection of facts that do not comport with our beliefs, and the spread of manufactured "facts" to justify illogical positions, just to name a few.

Unfortunately, the physical climate will be easier to repair than the political one, if only because it will become increasingly harder to deny its effects ... although many will continue to do so.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Who Is This "We" of Whom You Speak?

"We, the People of the United States*."

We all recognize the first seven words of the Preamble to the Constitution ... about the only parts of the Constitution many people recognize, other than the Second Amendment. The Framers of the Constitution were creating a bold experiment in representative democracy, and wanted to stress that the government they were designing was intended to serve The People. Their goal, on behalf of The People was to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence**, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Politicians of both parties have battled down the years over how to realize the promise of those stirring words, and it seems to me that their battles begin with differing conceptions of exactly who We, the People are.

First, let's take a grammatical look at we.

"We" is the first person plural pronoun, meant to indicate a group of individuals. It is also used by kings, emperors, and high religious officials in a form called the royal we. When using the royal we, a ruler who says that we will do something means that God and I or my court and I will do it. A more democratic version of the royal we is something The Grammar Girl has called the political we ... used in democracies and representative governments, it's more folksy and democratic than the royal we, and by using it, the ruler means you and I, pardner in this thing together. When the political we gets to be the ruler's default pronoun, it represents what The Grammar Girl has termed the grandiose narrator***.

Which brings me to President Trump's inaugural speech.

In this speech - a paragon of ominous, the-sky-is-falling oration - President Trump used the political we frequently to indicate what we will do; in summary: (1) "We will make America strong again;" (2) "We will make America wealthy again;" (3) "We will make America proud again;" (4) "We will make America safe again;" and (5) "We will make America great again."

Let's look at what Mr Trump has signed We, the People up for ...

He wants to make America strong again, but by any objective measure we have fielded the most powerful military force on earth. Combine that with our abundant natural resources and resilient (if battered) economy, and we are far more powerful than any other nation.

He wants to make America wealthy again, but to which we is he really speaking? He lives in a very small world of incredibly wealthy people who have little in common with 98% of Americans and are presumably comfortable with the legal, tax, and economic advantages that accrue to their social and economic position. Many of the actions Mr Trump might take to make the country wealthy again are likely to work against the interests of those at the top of the economic chain. Will he take them (and his own business interests) on? Which we will he serve?

He wants to make America proud again. I don't know about you, but I'm extraordinarily proud of this country, which I served for 43 years, 23 of them in uniform. I can tell you what doesn't make me proud - grandstanding gasbags who have never served their country at all, but talk a good game.

He wants to make America safe again, and here I can agree with him to a point ... crime is a definitely a problem. But safety is not simply a function of walls, a strong military, hermetically-sealed borders, powerful and empowered police, and a no-nonsense, throw-away-the-key judicial system. It's a also function of economic prosperity, good education, and a culture of civility and good citizenship. I'm still waiting for Mr Trump to explain how we are going to do those things ... and how he can set an example for civility and good citizenship that he belies every time he blatantly lies or fires off another insulting tweet.

Finally, grandly, he wants to make America great again. It's a catchy slogan that looks good on bright red baseball caps, but it's a slap in the face of all those who work hard every day in the service of an America that's already great. Mr Trump paints a picture of an America that's a dystopian hellhole ... but it's a dystopian hellhole that people desperately try to come to in search of a better life. Other countries build walls to keep their citizens in^†; Americans debate a wall to keep the rest of the world out. Nobody wants to come to a country that isn't great. How many thousands of people clamor to emigrate - legally or illegally - to Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Bangladesh? Venezuela? North Korea? Yemen?

We, the People, live in a country that's a lot better than we appreciate, a lot better than we often give it credit for, and in many ways a lot better than we deserve based on our rhetoric and actions. Is it perfect? Obviously not. Can it be made better? Of course. We, the People, can do it - but we need competent leadership and vision, neither of which we have elected.

Bottom line: we is an inclusive pronoun, but We, the People of America are a broad assembly of individuals from all over the world, with different conceptions of how we relate to each other, our government, and other nations. Sometimes, the political we doesn't include all of We, the People.

And all sides need to realize it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow, when we name the Left-Cheek Ass Clown for January. Be here.

Bilbo

* This brings up an interesting political/linguistic issue: is "the United States" singular or plural? Is it more proper to say "the United States is" or "the United States are?" This is a topic for another post, but you can read a discussion of the question and how it relates to the lessons of the Civil War in Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson.

** Spelled the British English way in the original text.

*** I believe this appellation would apply to President Trump.

† I was stationed in the divided city of Berlin back in the early 1980s, and have direct personal experience of how an oppressive government uses walls and murder to keep its people in line.

Unfriending

If you spend much time on Facebook, you have probably seen this recent post that has been making the rounds -

Given the reaction by some of my friends to some of the things I've posted, and my reaction to some of the things some of my friends have posted, I thought it was brilliant, and promptly published it on my own FB page. I received a number of comments, many of which concerned the number of people that are now being "unfriended" because of irreconcilable political differences.

This is sad.

Within my circle of friends, I have conservatives, libertarians, liberals, gays, lesbians, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, immigrants (including the legal, taxpaying one to whom I'm married), Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and all sorts of permutations and combinations thereof. So far, I haven't unfriended anyone because of their political views, religious beliefs, sexual orientations, or racial background. 

That's not to say that I won't unfriend anyone in the future. My general philosophy of life to like everybody until they give me some really good reason to not like them. What this means is that I have a lot of friends with whom I don't agree on all topics, but we get along anyhow. There are, of course, people I don't like - among them liberals, conservatives, libertarians, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, lesbians, atheists, agnostics, and immigrants - but the reason I don't like them isn't because they're Black or White or Hispanic or Asian or liberal or conservative or libertarian or Christian or Jewish or Muslim or gay or lesbian or atheistic or agnostic or come from some other country - it's usually because they're either trying to force their beliefs on me or doing something that is blatantly illegal*. 

So here's the deal ...

I'm going to keep writing this blog and expressing my opinions, which is my right under the First Amendment to the Constitution**. You are free to read or not read, as you wish. I encourage you to argue with me, and to call me out if you think I'm wrong. This is a democracy, in which we share thoughts and viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. If you think I'm wrong, though, I expect the courtesy of a counterargument that relies on genuine facts ... not ad hominem comments or snide remarks or allusions to unproven events or clickbait articles from Breitbart.com or an equivalent left-wing website. I expect a genuine effort to understand my point of view, as I'll try to understand yours. In today's superheated environment, it's unlikely that our respective opinions will change overnight, but at least we ought to be willing to consider the validity of different points of view based on evidence, and not on the political prism through which we view them.

If you can't do that, you may end up ... well ... unfriended ...

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Like coming to this country illegally and expecting everyone to think it's okay.

** Amazingly enough, there are rights guaranteed by amendments to the Constitution other than the Second.

Independence Day, 2016

Yes, I know that today is supposed to be Musical Monday. But today is a special day, and so Musical Monday will not appear this week, but will return one week from today in this space. You'll survive.

Today is Monday, July 4th - the American holiday of Independence Day. It celebrates the day in 1776 on which the Declaration of Independence (from Great Britain) was formally adopted by the Continental Congress. The draft of the declaration had actually already been approved by the delegates on July 2nd, but the formal adoption came two days later. This, perhaps, marks the start of the longstanding tradition of Congress putting off doing the right thing.

The Fourth of July is the traditional high point of summer, roughly midway between Memorial Day at the end of May and Labor Day at the beginning of September. It's a day for parades, speeches, fireworks, picnics, historical recreations, and a general good time as we celebrate the birth of the United States as an independent nation.

This year, I think our celebration of Independence Day ought to be a bit more reflective. We're in a presidential election year, after all, and our ability to be governed by an elected president rather than a hereditary king was one of the reasons we chose to declare our independence from the mother country. Our first President was, of course, George Washington, often called "The Indispensable Man" or "The Father of His Country." With courage, dignity, and foresight, Washington established the parameters and initial traditions of the office that has since been held by such other towering figures as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. And by lesser figures who have diminished it*.

This year, 240 years after the Declaration of Independence and 227 years after George Washington assumed office as our first President, we face a probable election choice between two candidates who share the distinction of having the lowest public approval ratings of any candidates in our history. You'd think that out of a population of 320 million people, we could do better.

But I digress.

One of the traditional themes of Independence Day celebrations is freedom. This is a word we Americans love, but for which we have many shades of understanding. When I was in grade school**, we were required to take Civics classes to learn about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. One of the lessons drummed into us back then was the difference between freedom and license, a difference that is pretty much ignored today. Here are the relevant definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Freedom: (1) The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint; (2) Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

License: (1) Formal or official permission to do something; (2) Freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way that results in excessive or unacceptable behavior.

It seems to me that what many of today's Americans, both on the political right and left, demand is not freedom, but license. Consider the following examples:

- Many on the Christian Right define religious freedom as the right not only to live according to their own beliefs, but to impose those beliefs on others or deny others the freedom to live according to the tenets of different religions.

- Many on the Left call for the legalization of drugs, ignoring their catastrophic impact on society.

- Many on the conservative Right reject even the discussion of any limits on the possession and sale of firearms of all types and on the right to carry them openly or concealed everywhere, ignoring the carnage on our streets and in our homes that's a result of the ready availability of weapons vastly more powerful than those imagined by the authors of the Second Amendment.

- Many on the Left demand a vaguely-defined wage equality, ignoring the fact that some jobs are more responsible or more technical than others, and consequently deserve a higher rate of pay***.

On this Independence Day, 240 years after the declaration of our independence, Americans around the world celebrate not the love of freedom, but the lust for license, draped in patriotic red, white, and blue bunting and paraded to the lively tune of fifes and drums.

I think we need to bring back old-style Civics classes ... but I also think they'd be treated as an anachronism by Americans besotted with the idea that freedom should know no bounds, including those of common sense and decency.

Have a good day. Enjoy your freedoms, and let the rest of us enjoy ours as well.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Yes, W, I'm talking about you. And Millard Fillmore. And James Buchanan.

** Shortly after the dinosaurs died out.

*** A "living wage" is not the same thing, and is worth supporting.

Taking Another Look at the Connections Between Hip and Thigh Bones

Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while may recall that I have often talked about my "Hip Bone's Connected to the Thigh Bone" theory of how everything is interconnected*. As we hunker down for the national trauma of the upcoming election, I think it's useful to go back and talk about hip bones, thigh bones, and the way we keep shooting ourselves in our economic and sociopolitical feet. Here's an example of what I mean**:

Consumers want low prices. Workers want high (or at least, living) wages. Businesses want high profits. In order to keep profits high and prices low, businesses can do one of two things: keep prices artificially low and count on sales volume to compensate for lower per-sale prices; or reduce their costs of operation and production.

How do businesses reduce costs?

They can seek new, cheaper sources of raw materials, upgrade machinery to newer and more efficient models, or reduce labor costs through automation or by exporting jobs to places with lower labor costs (usually overseas).

So ...

If we connect the bones, we see that one of the ways businesses reduce their costs and keep prices relatively low is by minimizing their labor costs.

However ...

People without jobs have no income with which to buy the cheaper goods, anyhow.

Which means that ...

Business profits go down because unemployed people can't buy their products, creating and maintaining a vicious economic circle.

If you look at it from the other direction, if businesses pay high wages they must, in order to maintain desired levels of profitability, raise their profitability in other ways, usually by increasing prices ... which eats up the higher wages the workers earn, which defeats the purpose of giving them the raise in the first place.

The hip bone's connected to the thigh bone.

I don't have the answers to this conundrum, but I think I do understand one Big Idea: politicians are masters at wishing away the interconnectedness of problems. They spout pat answers to complicated problems that address, at best, a single aspect of the interconnected mess: build a wall, slash taxes, cut government spending to the bone, deport immigrants***, repeal Obamacare, etc. We will never solve the nation's problems until and unless we start looking at how the parts of the whole fit together and address the causes, rather than the symptoms of problems. One of the best starts would be a comprehensive revision of our immigration policies, perhaps along the lines I have already suggested. Another would be a thorough, intellectually, morally, and economically honest review and reform of our health care system****.

Or we can just go on screaming at each other from our respective echo chambers, which is what our political discussions amount to today.

Have a good day. Think systematically. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Two places to go back and look are here (November 16th, 2007) and here (May 1, 2008).

** Disclaimer: you can take everything I know about economics, put it into your navel, and still have room for a herd of elephants and a brass band. I don't consider economics to be a science in itself, but an application of herd psychology.

*** Most discussion of deportation advocates deporting "immigrants" ... not "illegal" immigrants, just "immigrants." This is stupid, and works against one of the great advantages of the US - our willingness and ability to absorb tens of millions of immigrants over time, add them to the workforce, and make them productive members of society.

**** Don't hold your breath.

And This Little Piggy Cried "Me, Me, Me!" All the Way Home

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post last week: Nine Things About the Tokyo Subway That Will Drive Washington Commuters Crazy.

For those of us used to the hit-or-miss, will-it-come-or-won't-it, hope-I-don't-get-robbed-or-murdered excitement of riding the DC Metro, the concept of trains that are clean and run on time is a novel one. But what makes Tokyo's trains a lot nicer than Washington's has to do with people and their behavior. Of the nine things the article discusses about the Tokyo subway, three in particular stand out:

#2: It's Totally Orderly. In Japan, people line up and wait for people to exit the train before trying to board. In DC, it's everyone for himself/herself in a mad scrum when the doors open ... God forbid someone should make way for anyone else or avoid blocking the doors.

#3: It's Super Clean. Japanese people take their trash with them and put it in proper receptacles. In DC, commuters dump their trash wherever they want, assuming that it's someone else's job to clean it up.

#6: No Noise Pollution. Japanese trains are quiet because people use earphones with their music, and do not feel compelled to carry on loud conversations on their cell phones. In DC, everyone believes they are surrounded by a cone of silence that keeps everyone else from hearing the story of their last date, their medical problems, and their dinner plans.

This reflects how today's Americans see the world. The average American tends to value individual freedom above all else, often at the expense of recognizing any responsibilities to the larger society of which he is a part. An example is the furor over "open carry" laws in many states, where those who reject any limits on their Second Amendment right to bear arms do not care about the chilling effect their actions might have on those who take a more nuanced view of public armament, and who can't tell whether that fellow walking down the street with a loaded AR-15 is a "good guy with a gun" or a "bad guy with a gun."

We object to the "Nanny State" issuing laws we believe inhibit our individual rights. What business is of the government whether I wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle? If I want to smoke anyplace, why shouldn't I be allowed to? The Second Amendment says my right to keep and bear arms won't be infringed, so back the hell off with your limits.

We tend always to think of rights and freedoms, and not of responsibilities. I don't particularly care if you wear a motorcycle helmet or not, but if you get injured and require hugely expensive medical care you can't afford, it becomes my problem when my medical costs go up to cover your freedom. I don't care if you smoke, but I do care if my health is endangered when you do it ... you don't need to smoke, but I need to breathe. And we won't discuss the gun issue any more, because there's no point.

Clean subways that run on time and are peaceful and orderly are nice. People who take the time to think about the effect of their actions on others are nice, too.

But you don't find many of them here.

Have a good day. Remember the Golden Rule*. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* For those who may have forgotten, it is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It is not "Screw you, I'm doing what I want."

Giving a Bit More Polish to Your Invective

There was a time, many years ago, when people were more refined. When presidential candidates didn't brag about the size of their genitals. When day-to-day language didn't consist of four letter words and seven- and twelve-letter combinations of other nasty words. Things have gotten so bad that my daughter has gone from "Dad!! Language!!" around her own daughters to "They've heard it all in school." George Carlin's famous routine "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television" is meaningless nowadays, because all seven of those words and more can be heard routinely on prime-time TV.

I generally try to control my language, particularly around women and children and in professional environments. Some times, though, call for the employment of full-on, vivid, blue-streak cussing ... and when you really don't want to cut loose with the foul language, you need to be creative.

Here are a few ideas ...

In my study of Russian, I picked up three words that are perfectly innocent, yet can sound unbelievably foul and nasty when uttered in the right tone of voice. They are ptitsa ("bird"), chemodan (suitcase), and karandash ("pencil").

Having trouble with Russian pronunciation? There are a lot of old-fashioned swear words and expressions that have fallen out of favor in modern English, but can serve quite well in time of linguistic need. You can read a list of classics in this article from Mental Floss magazine, including: thunderation!, great horn spoon!, and by Saint Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of purgatory! My mother* was fond of Great Caesar's Ghost!, which I often use myself.

Many years ago I worked with an Air Force NCO who was also a Baptist minister. He was a giant of a man, but as even-tempered and gentle as he was huge and intimidating. Whenever he got particularly upset about something, he'd cut loose with a deep, rumbling, Goodness gracious! We gots to do somethin' about this! ... which, for him, was the equivalent of a drunken longshoreman screaming invective.

Need something else? There are always the old standbys like Holy Mackerel! and Godfrey Daniels! And I remember a line of dialog from a novel** in which a really, really upset lady shouted at someone, "You loathsome piece of industrial waste! You toad!"

So, Dear Readers, you have a lot of options that will let you curse imaginatively, without using gutter language and sounding like a boor. And if all else fails, you can fall back on any of a number of Shakespearean Insult Generators that are available online ... like this one.

Have a good day, thou churlish, fly-bitten joithead! See you tomorrow, when we honor the March Right-Cheek Ass Clown. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Mom's view was that if you needed to use foul language, it was a sign that you weren't smart enough to think of anything more appropriate to say. Dad would use the occasional four-letter word (although I never heard him drop the f-bomb); for him, the ultimate put down was to call someone a "horse's ass" ... which I've always found to be a particularly quaint and useful expression.

** I think it was The Mephisto Waltz, by Fred Mustard Stewart.

When Are You Really an Adult?

I read a fascinating article in the Atlantic Monthly the other day: When Are You Really an Adult?  The subhead of the article's title was: "In an age when the line between childhood and adulthood is blurrier than ever, what is it that makes people grown up?"

That's a very good question, given how a lot of people behave lately. As we see every day, acceptable behavior is not normally a good indication of responsible adulthood. Angel posted a few college fraternity house banners in a post the other day which clearly demonstrate that adulthood is but a mirage shimmering on the distant horizon for many young men* whose mental age is far short of their physical one.

The article provides an interesting discussion of the various ways in which we determine that someone is an adult, among them:

Chronological age (generally 18 or 21 years);

Biological age (puberty, the age at which bone growth ends, etc);

Legal age (there are numerous variations of this, based on the age at which one may legally smoke, drink, drive, buy weapons, enlist in the military, etc). These vary widely from state to state and nation to nation;

Age of Consent (whatever that means in a society as soaked in sex as ours is);

Completion of a social or religious ceremonial rite (bar/bat mitzvah, confirmation, quinceañera, etc);

Graduation from an educational program (high school, generally at 18; or college, generally at 21 or 22);

Marriage (probably not a good measure if a shotgun was involved); or,

Becoming a parent.

I don't think that any one of these, by itself, is a true marker of adulthood. Clearly, chronological age is not a valid measure, as there are both a lot of very mature pre-teens and a great many utter morons of more advanced age (as in Congress, or the clowns occupying the bird sanctuary in Oregon). Biological age is also unreliable, particularly given that the age of puberty seems to be dropping and will probably reach 6 before I shuffle off my mortal coil. Ceremonies are nice, but mean nothing. And it's obvious from the number of children with single teenage parents (generally with no father taking responsibility) that parenthood is not a good measure, either.

I'd never really thought about this in relation to my own life. In fact, I don't think I ever considered a line that divided my childhood from my adulthood. Looking back, I think I could identify three events that might have served.

The first was my commissioning as a Second Lieutenant in the Air Force back in 1973**. I was 21 years old at the time, and a new graduate of Penn State with a shiny new Linguistics degree clutched in my hand. When I stood in Schwab Auditorium on campus, raised my right hand, and took the commissioning oath, I was agreeing to accept responsibilities far greater than any I'd had before ... including the responsibility to give up my life if that was called for. It should have been a serious wake-up call, but I don't remember if I recognized it as such.

The second came in May of 1974, when my first child was born and I realized I was responsible for shaping a life other than my own***.

The third came just last year when my father passed away, making me suddenly the patriarch of the family. My mother died in 2001, and with dad's passing I no longer had an honored and respected family elder to ask for advice or counsel, and no more direct connection to a long and fascinating family history ... all of a sudden, I became that family elder, with a need to show that I deserved the honor and respect we'd all paid to dad. This is the one that hit home ... and I was 63 years old.

The question of when we become adults is a complicated one, and the answer is different for everyone. Agnes would probably question - frequently - whether I've crossed that boundary, myself. There's no good single measure, and it's probably a judgment that needs to be made by persons other than oneself.

Just be sure to ask Agnes about me on a good day, okay?

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Inasmuch as I have a granddaughter who is approaching college age, I take a pretty dim view of such things.

** Those of you who have served in the military will no doubt question whether a Second Lieutenant is actually an "adult," but just work with me on this, okay?

*** My children have grown into fine, strong, capable adults ... in spite of my mistakes and shortcomings, which are legion.

How to Behave When Company Comes

Tomorrow is the day that Pope Francis is scheduled to speak to a joint session of Congress*. As everyone prepares for the spectacle, some members of Congress, unused to the need to exercise civil and respectful behavior, have asked their - for want of a better term - leadership to provide some guidelines on how to dress and act during the Pope's appearance. This is important because, as one article on the subject put it,

"Francis is famous for making political audiences uncomfortable, and his calls for global leaders to reduce inequality and to act on climate change might sound like an address by President Obama to some Republican lawmakers. At the same time, the pope’s opposition to abortion rights could make some Democrats uncomfortable and lead to GOP cheers, especially given the charged debate over federal funding for Planned Parenthood that’s threatening to trigger a government shutdown** at the end of the month."

If you are surprised that people who are supposed to be grown adults with responsibilities at the national - and, indeed, international - level should need to ask for advice on how to behave, you have clearly not been observing Congressional behavior over the last few years. This is, after all, the body in which a member*** shouted "You lie!" at the President of the United States while he was addressing Congress. One member, Representative Paul Gosnar of Arizona, has already announced that he will boycott the Pope's speech because the Pope might talk about climate change instead of just sticking to religion⁺.

Nevertheless, our elected reprehensives have promised to be on their best behavior during the Pope's visit, even if they need some adult guidance on how to do it.

Now if we could only find someone to give them some adult guidance on how to behave like responsible men and women doing the people's business, rather than doing their business on the people.

Have a good day. Listen to what the Pope has to say, even if you don't agree with him. It's the respectful thing to do, after all.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* For those of you unfamiliar with this expression, it means that Congress is easier to understand after you've smoked a joint ... or two.

** This is what educated and responsible people might call "government by petulant blackmail."

*** Representative Joe Wilson (R, SC), that paragon of respectful civility.

⁺ Imagine that ... the man who is supposed to be the representative of God on earth daring to talk about the importance of protecting our common home! As far as we know, God hasn't provided a spare for us to use once we wreck this one.