Fixing What's Broken

The other day my friend Ed posted a commentary on Facebook in which he discussed reactions to a story about a woman who, after the death of her husband, relied on Medicaid to provide medical care for her children. The story generated an ever-downward-spiraling swell of anger and vituperation, accusing the woman of being lazy, demanding she get a job, accusing her of living large at the expense of others, and worse. Ed's commentary on the story and the online reactions to it ended with this paragraph:

"At one point in the discussion, someone asked, how did we get here? That's what I am wondering about. What has gone wrong in our culture that so many people are filled with this anger, looking for something to be offended at, and so bereft of the simple human virtues of kindness, civility, and empathy? How did rage and contempt become successful marketing tools, while compassion and kindness are looked on as weakness? What got broken with us, and how do we fix it?"

How, indeed? There are a lot of reasons our society has become more coarse and uncivil.

One of them is the lack of good examples set by parents. When I was growing up in the 50s and early 60s, my parents were loving, but strict. We were expected to be polite and courteous, and to reserve anger for the few times it was the only reasonable response to a bad situation. Nowadays, it seems that parents ignore foul language and bad behavior on the part of their children, whether because they're too busy with work and their own recreation to pay attention to it, or because of a misguided belief that their children should "express themselves honestly," even at the expense of common courtesy and civility.

The comforting anonymity of the Internet is another, allowing despicable trolls to spew hatred and propagate the most ridiculous lies, wrapped in the warm blanket of anonymity provided by a screen name and an opaque IP address. It's much easier to act badly when you don't have to face the target of your bad behavior.

Yet another is the belief of many present-day Americans in the absolute primacy of individual freedom over responsibility to others. When the individual is considered supreme, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that one has not only the right, but the obligation to say and do whatever one wants, without regard to the rights and feelings of others. It represents the erosion of empathy and compassion - two things that once were hallmarks of America and its people.

An outgrowth of this attitude is the belief that if another person has fallen on hard times, it is their fault for not accepting personal responsibility for their own lives. If a person loses his or her job as a result of economic decisions made by their employer, is it their fault? If they try to find a new job and discover that all the jobs for which they're qualified have been sent to India and China where workers are cheap, is it their fault? If they try to get the training and education that will qualify them for other jobs, only to find that it's priced beyond their reach, and their governments - in the sacred interest of cutting spending - have eliminated the assistance that might have helped them, is that their fault, too? Yes, we each have an obligation to be responsible for ourselves and our well-being ... but we also have an obligation to understand that sometimes there really are circumstances beyond our control.

Finally (for now, at least), we have elected to the presidency a boorish and utterly unqualified individual whose personal behavior is in many ways the opposite of what we once found admirable in our leaders. His total lack of gravitas, crass behavior toward women, proud ignorance of public policy, jingoistic attitudes, cavalier jettisoning of decades of international agreements and norms, and crude, 140-character Twitter attacks on those who disagree with him demonstrate the sort of person many of us were ready to put in the chair once occupied by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Our children look at his execrable behavior and assume it must be okay because, hey, he's the president ... and why should they be expected to act any differently? And why did we decide things were so terrible that a person like this seemed like a good option to so many people?

What got broken with us?

How do we fix it?

They're excellent questions. I think the first one is easy enough to answer; the second, much harder. We can fix it only by returning to the qualities that really did make America great: not just individual determination and self-reliance, but on a sense of community and a shared understanding that we all have a role to play in making the country great by working together and helping each other.

Unfortunately, I don't see that realization dawning on much of America any time soon.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

A Question of Perspective

You may recall, Dear Readers, that former Vice President Dick Cheney was selected as our Ass Clown of the Year for 2014, largely on the basis of his strident defense of the torture of terrorism suspects. Second place, you may also recall, went to the Republican Congressional Leadership for its lack of … well … leadership, as well as compassion, statesmanship, and evidence of ability to govern. Third and fifth places went to ISIS/”The Islamic State” and the Taliban respectively, for reasons that probably need no elaboration, while Texas senator Ted Cruz handily took fourth.

As I always do, I linked to the blog post from my Facebook page, where I received several comments, one of which was this one from my friend Bob: “Very disappointing that both ISIS and the Taliban finished behind anyone. I think we may lack some perspective.”

Now, Bob and I don’t always see eye-to-eye on things, but I respect his opinions. In this case, though, I have to say I think he’s dead wrong.

It’s very easy and satisfying to point out that the crazies of ISIS and the Taliban - and the lunatics who murdered a dozen cartoonists in Paris yesterday - deserve condemnation for their religious bigotry, senseless violence, and generally disgusting outlook on things like decent treatment of women, and living in the modern world. We know that they’re ass clowns, whether they won the vote or not.

But sometimes, we're ass clowns, too.

We recoil in horror when ISIS rapes, tortures, and murders innocents with terrifying glee. We are horrified when al Qaeda sympathizers behead American hostages. We shake our heads in disgust at the savage murder of editorial cartoonists. We value the sanctity of life and the dignity of the individual, and you may recall from your history lessons that we conducted major war crimes trials after World War II in which German and Japanese defendants were prosecuted for - among other things - torturing prisoners.

And yet we have done it ourselves. As I noted in the award citation,

While many argue that the torture of individuals responsible for the despicable murder of innocents simply shows that they are reaping what they've sown, America has always stood for the rule of law and justice - even when it's hard, and even when such rules have been mocked and ignored by other nations and groups. By resorting to the terrible actions for which we have so often condemned other regimes, we have lowered ourselves to their level and have forfeited the moral high ground.

Not everyone sees it that way, of course. In an OpEd essay in the Washington Post last Monday titled “Democrats Lose the ‘Torture’ Debate,” conservative commentator Marc Thiessen gloats (and I use the term deliberately) that "six sordid years of Democratic demagoguery and investigations" into the use of torture on terror suspects “show that the opponents of the CIA interrogation program were completely and utterly defeated.” He goes on to write that

"… a (Washington) Post poll revealed the American people’s final verdict. The vast majority agree with the CIA that these techniques were necessary and justified ... And - most importantly - 76 percent said they would do it again to protect the country."

But does that make it right? As I have noted in this space before, we teach our children that “he/she did it first!” is not an excuse for bad behavior. And in this particular case, that bad behavior will come home to roost with an awful vengeance the next time a YouTube video shows an American being tortured by those we no longer have a moral right to condemn.

In the future, thanks to Mr Cheney and Mr Thiessen and people like them … people who lack perspective … we have lost the moral right to condemn the use of torture by our enemies. We pride ourselves on being a country where the rule of law is supreme, but nowadays the law seems sometimes to be treated like a helpless prisoner - tortured until it tells us what we want it to say.

Because, you see, our values and our principles lack perspective.

Have a good day.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Who Gets the Statue?

Last month I read a very interesting and thought-provoking article by Peter Singer titled A Statue for Stalin. You can read it here if you're so inclined.

In the article, Mr Singer noted that statues of Josef Stalin are popping up across Russia, as he is credited with leading Russia (the Soviet Union, at that time) to victory in World War II. Stalin was, however, also a brutal dictator who presided over the murder of millions of Russians as a result of his policies and his paranoia, divided Europe, and was personally responsible for decades of misery and terror in Eastern Europe, not to mention Russia. The underlying question posed by Mr Singer's article was this: why is it acceptable to erect a statue to Josef Stalin, and not to Adolf Hitler?

On the surface, this might seem like a dumb question. Adolf Hitler was one of the most horrifying mass murderers in history, and more than any other single person was responsible for the outbreak of World War II, during which Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union and committed ghastly atrocities throughout Europe. Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths, but so was Stalin (and so was Mao Zedong, but we won't discuss him at the moment) ... and yet there are statues of Stalin in Russia (and even in the United States - the article points out that there is a bust of the Soviet dictator at the National D-Day Memorial in Virginia).

So, why is a statue of Stalin okay, but one of Hitler not?

One obvious answer is the simplest one: Hitler lost. Because history is written by the victors, it's the loser who gets short shrift. Had Germany prevailed, we'd probably see statues of Hitler all over, and none of Stalin. Another answer is that the Soviet Union (Russia, now) has a need to be able to view its tortured history in the best possible light ... which is easier, since it was on the winning side.

All this leads to a larger question: who gets the statue?

Washington, DC, is full of statues honoring people that are long forgotten ... obscure quasi-heroes (and, less frequently, heroines) who were famous for reasons that have been lost in time. Someday, there will be efforts made to erect statues to and name things for the "famous" people of our era - but who will they be? There's a larger-than-life statue of Ronald Reagan greeting people arriving by car at (of course) Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. My daughter works at the Reagan Building. We frequently drive on Virginia Route 234, part of which is known as the Ronald Wilson Reagan Highway*. Who else merits a statue?

I don't think there's a single current member of Congress - of either party - worthy of having anything more than an outhouse named after him (or her). Our military heroes often turn out to have feet** of clay (consider the dismal fate of one-time hero General David Petraeus). We have no statesmen worthy of the name.

Who gets the statue? Our heroes nowadays are more down-to-earth ... they're policemen, firefighters, and the selfless people who work at the local level to make things better. But they don't get statues very often. Virginia names a lot of bridges and stretches of road for state police officers who have died in the line of duty, but aside from a sign at the side of the road, they're pretty much forgotten.

In the end, people with agendas and deep pockets will ensure that their preferred people are suitably honored with heroic statues, national holidays, memorial highways, or national landmarks. None of them will be as unworthy as a Hitler or a Stalin, but few of them will be real heroes, either. We aren't making many of those any more***. And it's sad.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* The GOP wants to make sure that the deification of Ronald Reagan continues ad infinitum, even though he'd be a pariah by today's Republican standards.

** Or other parts.

*** If you're interested, go back and read my post from August of 2012 titled, "Another Word for 'Hero' for some related thoughts.

Area 51

You know all about the famous Area 51, don't you? The place where the government is storing the wrecked UFOs and where the autopsies were conducted on the corpses of the alien beings who flew them. Area 51 has figured prominently in films like Independence Day and Area 51 (oddly enough), and in the general popular culture as the avatar for ultrasecret government facilities. Area 51 is said to be so secret that it doesn't appear on maps and its very existence is officially denied*.

Until now.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by National Security Archives researcher Jeffrey Richelson, the CIA has released a declassified map which actually shows the famous Area 51, located about 150 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada ...

Well, now we know it's really there. So what's really there?

What would you expect to find stored in a super-top-secret government facility located in the trackless wastes of the Mojave desert? Does it look like the secret warehouse from Raiders of the Lost Ark ... ?

Forget the Ark of the Covenant, wrecked UFOs, and alien corpses. Here are a few of the things I think are really stored at Area 51:

- Jimmy Hoffa.

- Brains and hearts the GOP isn't using.

- Brains the Democrats aren't using.

- Common sense and civility Congress isn't using.

- The person who really shot JR.

- Iraq's WMD.

- Bigfoot.

How about you, Dear Readers? What do you think is stored at Area 51, and what is it really being used for? Put on those tinfoil hats and let ol' Bilbo know what you think.

Because, as they used to say on The X-Files, the truth is out there.

Ignored, but out there.

Have a good day. See you tomorrow for Cartoon Saturday.

Bilbo

* Sort of like climate change, at least in some quarters.

We Have a Really Big Shoe for You Today ...*

I've often wondered what it is about shoes that makes some people crazy.

There are women, for example, who can't have enough pairs of shoes, in every conceivable style and every color of the rainbow (and a few colors nature probably never intended). I have known women who would gladly go without food rather than pass up the latest pair of wonderful shoes from some famous Italian designer, and who are willing to risk permanent spinal damage and the threat of falls in order to wear extraordinarily high heels that might have passed in medieval times for instruments of torture.

Former Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos was famous (or infamous) for her enormous collection of shoes, said to number over three thousand pairs. She, however, was quoted as saying, "I did not have three thousand pairs of shoes, I had one thousand and sixty," which is still a pretty respectable number, given that you can only wear one pair at a time.

By the same token there are men who are, for whatever reason, enamored of women who wear shoes with stratospherically, dangerously high heels** ...

In the words of an interesting article I found the other day, "What is it about tarty shoes on a naked chick that keeps guys coming back for more?"

What, indeed?

I've never understood the fascination with high-heeled shoes. They look dangerous and uncomfortable, and their cost - in terms of amount of material used in construction - is matched only by designer bathing suits of microscopic size and astronomic price. I've never felt that they added anything to the desirability of an otherwise beautiful lady that attractive clothes wouldn't do better. They are said to make a lady's derriere twitch more alluringly as she totters along, but I've never seen it.

As it happens, I have a small amount of experience wearing shoes with heels. Back when we were dancing competitively and training hard, Agnes convinced me to buy a set of Latin dance shoes with 1.5-inch Cuban heels, which were supposed to help enhance my Latin hip motion^***. While not as "high" as the three-inch heels Agnes wore for dancing, they were high enough ... I never felt like I could keep my balance or walk properly, and always had the feeling that I was ready to fall forward onto my face. It gave me a new appreciation for what ladies go through when wearing heels ... and I only ever wore them a few times before returning them to the box which, to this day, sits high on a shelf.

So, what is it with shoes, anyhow? If you're a man, you only need three pairs of shoes: brown, black, and athletic⁺ ... unless you need special shoes for your sport of choice: golf shoes, soccer cleats, dance shoes, hiking boots, etc. If you're a lady, you need dozens of shoes in a rainbow of colors (including 15 shades of white men cannot distinguish from each other).

I almost never notice a woman's shoes, no matter how high the heels are (or aren't). The one exception I can remember was the day our friend Nadja came to visit wearing this amazing high-heeled technicolor footwear ...

My eyes hurt for days.

So ladies, if you want to attract my attention forget the heels - wear comfortable shoes. Spend your money on nice tank tops instead. No, not these ...

these ...

They're a lot more comfortable to wear, and a lot cheaper than exotic shoes.

You're welcome.

Have a good day. Put your best comfortably-shod foot forward.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* With apologies to the late Ed Sullivan.

** Colloquially, if crudely known as "come-f**k-me pumps."

^*** It didn't work.

⁺ What we used to call "sneakers" before they were specialized into oblivion.

If They Can _____, Why Can't They _____?

The title of today's post represents a classic construction that's usually invoked to compare two totally unrelated things to make a point that can't be made in any other way. Some examples are:

If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they fix the DC Metro?, and

If they can eradicate smallpox, why can't they find a cure for the common cold?

To these, I would add another one:

If we can build a fantastically complicated mobile space laboratory, send it 352 million miles to Mars, and land it safely on the surface in an impossibly complex maneuver, why can't we build anything else in this country?

Ask yourself when the last time was that you bought a manufactured item that was made in the United States, including any toy, any piece of clothing, or any consumer electronic device starting with "i".

Betcha can't remember.

And then ask yourself why we have over 8% unemployment.

And then ask any of the people running for president* what - exactly - their plan is for bringing any of those manufacturing jobs back to the United States ... broad, general hot-air statements about tax credits and protecting job creators don't count.

Good luck getting an answer.

Just something else to think about in the 90-odd** days remaining until the election.

Have a good day. Enjoy your job, if you have one. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Especially Governor Romney, since he wants us to believe he can do a better job than the incumbent.

** And trust me, they will certainly be odd.

Payment for Results?

One of the very best opinion pieces I've read in a long time is this one by CNN contributor Bob Greene - Why Do We Pay Politicians for No Results?

What an excellent question!

Mr Greene puts it this way:

"Whether, individually, we are conservatives or liberals or somewhere in the middle, we have a right to expect the people who have been hired to solve the country's problems to do just that, and to spare us the name-calling and blame-shifting. We wouldn't accept that from electricians or auto mechanics; there is no reason to accept it from men and women with federal titles."

What a novel concept ... expecting results rather than complaints and finger-pointing! Of course, the apologists for each side don't see it that way. They sanctimoniously shake their heads and spout political bromides and twisted statistics that "prove" every problem would be solved if only the other guy wasn't so stupid and would just see the light and do things their way. And so, of course, nothing worthwhile ever gets done, except we get lots of post offices named and motions in honor of National Coal Tar Appreciation Month passed.

Ass clowns.

The next time you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, imagine that you had the same ability to demand good performance from your elected reprehensives as you do from that plumber. Don't you wish you could file a complaint with a Better Government Bureau the way you can with the Better Business Bureau?

Well, in a way you can ... remember this sorry performance come the next election, and be sure to vote for the ineffective dumbass of your choice.

Have a good day. Demand more, expect less*.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* In the words of the immortal Jerry Reed, "He who expected nothin' ain't gonna be deceived!"

Questions on My Mind

This morning, I'm wondering about a few things:

What the hell is a Justin Bieber and why should I care? And did you know that "bieber" means "beaver" in German (yes, I know the word is actually biber, but it's 5:00 AM ... just give me the joke, okay).

Can we get Lady Gaga back into the egg?

Why the bizarre fascination with vampires? We already have the IRS, insurance companies, and "miscellaneous fees and charges" on our phone bills.

Who forgot to pay the Spring Bill this year?

How do the religious nuts who run Iran reconcile praising the revolution in Egypt while insisting that demonstrators in their own country should be executed?

Who put the ram in the rama lamma ding dong?

Has anybody on the far right actually read the Constitution?

And a brief message for those members of Congress who have not yet actually been accused of a crime, caught flirting on Facebook, or spend their free time villifying their political opponents:

By the way ... special note to our elected reprehensives on both sides of the aisle: the word bipartisan does not mean "my way or the highway."

That's all. I'm just feeling grouchy this morning.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Things I Don't Do

Because I'm feeling lazy this morning, I thought I'd just plagiarize share with you a list I got from my friend Bob yesterday titled "Things I Don't Do."

Actually, the list of things I don't do is much longer than this, but it includes a lot of boring, common sense stuff like "smoke," "take drugs," and "hang out with Republicans." Bob's list is more fun ...

1. I don't do windows because I love birds and don't want one to run into a clean window and get hurt.

2. I don't wax floors because I am terrified a guest will slip and hurt himself. I'll feel terrible and he'll probably sue me.

3. I don't mind dust bunnies because they are very good company. I have named most of them, and they agree with everything I say.

4. I don't disturb cobwebs because I want every creature to have a home of its own.

5. I don't do Spring Cleaning because I love all the seasons and don't want the others to get jealous.

6. I don't plant a garden because I don't want to get in God's way. He is an excellent designer.

7. I don't put things away because I'll never be able to find them again.

8. I don't cook gourmet meals when I entertain because I don't want my guests to stress out over what to make when they invite me over for dinner.

9. I don't iron because I choose to believe labels that promise my shirts are "Permanent Press."

10. I don't stress much on anything because "A Type" personalities die young and I want to stick around and become a wrinkled up crusty ol' person!

Not a bad list. So, how am I doing with it? Here's the scorecard:

1. Yep. Birds love me. I care about birds a lot. In fact, everyone always says that I'm for the birds.

2. Absolutely right. Hardwood floors + Wax = Lawsuit Waiting to Happen. Especially when you live close to Washington, DC, which attracts lawyers like a magnet draws iron filings.

3. This one's spot on. I like Nessa for the same reason ... I can tell her anything, no matter how stupid, and she'll look at me adoringly as if to say, "You are absolutely brilliant! Can I have a treat now?"

4. This one, not so much. I don't like spiders or cobwebs. Good in theory, though.

5. Absolutely right. I clean when absolutely necessary, regardless of season. I subscribe to the old Amish adage that a home should be clean enough to be healthy and dirty enough to be happy.

6. False. I do plant a garden each year. I am the King of Basil. I do need to speak to The Deity about those weeds He insists on sharing with me, though.

7. Right on the money! Agnes is forever handing me things and telling me to put them in a safe place where we'll be sure to find them again. This is an absolute guarantee that they'll end up resting for all eternity with Jimmy Hoffa and one of each of my sock pairs.

8. Wrong. I love to cook and I'm pretty good at it. I don't worry about stressing my friends about what to cook when they invite me because most of them don't cook and would rather buy me dinner at a restaurant, anyhow.

9. I absolutely believe the "Permanent Press" labels. And I also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Republican concern for the middle class, and the Democrats ability to come up with coherent policies.

And finally,

10. I do stress a lot, actually. I got it from my father. I've been a "wrinkled-up, crusty old person" - at least in my heart - since age 10.

So, Dear Readers, what are the things you don't do? Share them in the comments so that we can all know each other better.

And have a few laughs at each others' expense, while we're at it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo