Damn Yankees

The other day I entertained myself by watching the movie Damn Yankees. I love this film, and the stage play upon which the movie is based. It’s a musical, book by George Abbot and Douglas Wallop, music and lyrics by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross. It was filmed in 1958. One of the treats is seeing a very young Bob Fosse dance with Gwen Verdon (also young.) Bob Fosse is a subject for another article on American culture, but right now, we are dealing with this story, which is an American version of Doctor Faustus.

Faust, if you read it in school or on your own (bless you if no one had to force you to do it!) is the man who made a deal with the devil. Faust wants it all; knowledge, the ability to perform magic, beautiful women and the gold to go with it. All he need do is sign his life over to the devil. In blood. After he makes his deal and signs on the dotted line, the devil does deliver. For Faust, it’s a wild, crazy and satisfying ride. But then his time comes up and Faustus, now having those second thoughts, asks for God to save him. For his prayer of appeal, the devils kill Faust by taring him limb by limb.  It’s a bloody mess.

Another European story of this ilk is Don Juan. Mozart made his own musical version to this dark theme story, his great opera Don Giovanni. This is a story of a real son-of-a-bitch, Juan, who lies and cheats and sleeps with any woman, willing or unwilling, that he can. Like Faust, he is not a poor or uneducated man. There is no bleeding-heart reason for his actions except that he will have what he wants and he will kill if anyone stands in his way. Juan kills the father of a young woman that he ravaged. By the end of the opera, half the world is chasing this creep but he escapes human punishment by being dragged down to hell by the father he killed in the beginning of the story.

Both of these narratives are European morality tales. Damn Yankees is strictly an American version because, in the end, the lead character, Joe Hardy, (played by Tab Hunter) finds a way out of the contract by getting the devil to break the deal. Yes! All-American, that Joe Hardy.

I think of Damn Yankees as one of those quintessential American stories that illuminate our culture of optimism and hope that one can overcome the obstacles in life.  In addition to that it is a morality tale just as surely as Faustus and Don Giovanni.  In both of those European stories, the bad guys gets their comeuppance via the devil and are forever denied contact with God. Therefore, those stories are tragedies. Because to be denied the light and peace of God means the end to all existence and that is awful.

Joe Hardy is not a “bad guy” in the traditional sense of the word. He is a middle class man of middle age who is frustrated by the Washington Senator’s dismal record especially against the Yankees. Thus the title Damn Yankees. Joe’s exclaims that if the Senators had one good hitter, they  would do better. Enter the Devil, played by Ray Walston. The Devil reminds Joe that, in his youth, he was a good player being scouted by the major leagues. How would he, Joe, like to have that chance again? Joe is, at first, an unbeliever in the man standing before him is the devil able to perform the magic of returning Joe to his physical state of 25 year previous. When he is convinced, and when he insists on an escape clause in the contract the Devil offers him, the miracle is performed and middle aged Joe becomes young Joe Hardy. And can he hit!

Joe performs well and becomes quite the star athlete. But complications set in when Joe begins to miss his wife. That’s when the infamous Lola (Gwen Verdon) is called in to divert Joe’s attention. But unlike Faust or Juan, Joe is not interested in that part of the life of being a baseball star. He is sincere about wanting to help the Senators. Period. He’s your traditional American male. He understands the word fidelity.

While Joe Hardy is outsmarted by the devil at one point – he misses the deadline for activating the escape clause – because Joe wants to do the right thing, he forces the devil to break the contract thus releasing Joe from it and returning him back to his life before the devil had successfully tempted him.

This musical play illustrates well the vast difference between us and the rest of the world. Certainly we see and act on the dark side, and some Americans are “going to hell.”  But in America there’s always an escape clause. We think we can outsmart the devil. And many times we do. The moral of the tale is that you cannot go back and have what you lost or never had. No one can give those things to you. And anyone who says he can is probably the devil or his minion.  Sure, the devil gives you the desired goodies, but they last only as long as he deems fit. In Damn Yankees, the devil never had any intention of letting the Senators win the pennant.  Evil is a surface thing. Just check and when you cannot find substance, you have found evil.

It is a virtue to be yourself, to develop your talents and to work to make a career doing what you love. If you don’t, you are fair game for temptation. It is so Old World to live someone else’s version of life. Don’t. Live your life. Even if that means you have to start over  during your later years in order to realize your true self. It’s the American way, if at first you don’t succeed try, try again. This is not a question of that cliche of “re-inventing” yourself. This is a question of finding you. Only then can you truly mature into that self-reliant human being that is strong enough to hold out a helping hand to those in need.

When America first formed, her intellectuals determined to shun European ways. From the get-go American writers told old stories with a new twist. Damn Yankees is a fine example of this American genre that is still with us. Let’s keep doing it our way.

Et tu, Newt?

Many a word about Newt Gingrich have been flying around lately. It seems that a few conservatives as well as Republicans have discovered what the libertarian faction has known for quite some time. Newt is a part of the regime. As in the “ruling class.”

What exactly is the “ruling class?” Or for that matter, the “regime?” The official definition is that it is a political or social system. You know, the establishment. Newt is very much a part of the establishment. He is an accepted member, wealthy in connections and cash. That he is no longer in direct political power is only because the present ruling regime is not of his political party. When the GOP gets back in, Newt will be around. Guys like Newt make their fortunes by their political connections. He has earned them. That I would never deny him.

I like it that Newt is out of the closet. It’s good for conservatives to gain an understanding of what has been happening to their nation for the past, oh, 100 years. Our spiral downwards from the uniqueness that was America into some sort of quasi European nation didn’t happen over night. And it did not begin with the current president. He is the recipient of a long line of individuals, within the establishment, who made him and his ideas in the White House possible. Obama is the direct heir of George W. Bush. Gracious I can hear the hue and cry of Republicans everywhere. But that president did his part to get us into the mess we are in. And he inherited a mess from Bill Clinton.

Lest we forget, Newt and Bill managed to co-exist. My theory is that they were able to wheel and deal because they are very much alike. Both are smart men who get along well with people. No, Gingrich doesn’t have Clinton’s charm, but Newt is personable. He could not have accomplished what he has if he were not a likable guy. To continue the comparison,while Clinton did not divorce his wife, he is a known and unapologetic fornicator. Newt has had three wives. And both men are making millions from their past accomplishments in government.

Nice work if you can get it.

Newt and Bill are not alone. Anyone who has worked in government  has a good chance of making a killer living. Once you are thrown out of office it doesn’t mean the American taxpayer won’t still be paying your salary. Ex-legislators get to be high-priced consultants. Ditto bureaucrats. They go to work for corporations, like the pharmaceuticals, as liaisons between the company and the bureaucracies. It’s about networking and connections, but not networking with other people in business. The real gold lies in government connections.  As bad as that sounds – well, it’s down and out corrupt – America’s citizens need to wake up to smell the coffee of what all those Byzantine regulations have done for us. They force more young people into law school than medical school for one thing. The best and the brightest want to learn how to sue a physician, not be a physician.

These are difficult concepts for us to swallow, that we Americans no longer can look up to those who lead us. It is difficult to wrap our heads around the idea that this is not our forefathers’ nation, it’s not even our father’s. It makes a twist in my belly to think that I am at the mercy of so many people who do not know me, who only wish to keep me quiet and want my money at every turn. I hate to say it, but I am disgusted with too many of my fellow Americans. Indeed, I don’t even think of them as Americans any more. They are “Amereuropeans.” These members of the establishment think of themselves as above it all.That means above us.  There is their world and then there is our world. Theirs is a world of privilege and power over the lives of others, namely us. Ours is a world of hard work and the taking of our earnings so that the privileged few can continue their life making decisions for us. They are the aristocracy. We are the peasants, placed here on earth for their benefit.

It is a relief to see  more Americans, mostly conservatives, have made a good beginning in grasping the fundamentals of what is actually going wrong in our nation. It is not about placing the “right party” in power. It is about placing the right people in power, getting virtuous individuals elected, no matter their party affiliation. It may mean that it is time to create a viable third party that reflects the true American values of self-reliance and self-restraint. It does mean that such fools as Mark Sanford, who had everything going for him but gave it all up to fornicate with some harlot from Argentina, will be seen for what he is. A man of no self-restraint who holds only his own pleasures as his primary concern in life. Do we really need such men to lead us? Hell no. The Sanfords of this world are not truly American because our Founders did not engage in such behavior. The men who gave us this nation were men of self-restraint. They set the example. They understood that for America to continue, virtue would have to be our calling card.

There are those who say “you cannot go back” to what was.  Correct. You can’t. But you can reclaim virtue. You can radicalize. You can, shall I say it? be judgmental? That means you will judge everyone by the same virtues you live by. In essence we do that now. Our own moral laziness has caused us to accept others who are morally lazy and look where that has gotten us. Yes indeed, look in the mirror to discover our nation’s shortcomings.

Newt doesn’t get anywhere in this life without you buying into it. You can cut off  his powers to earn and manipulate by shutting him off. Judge him by your own standards. Not by the ethics of others. And when he comes on to the TV to pontificate, that’s a good time to go brush your teeth.

Authentic Health

A few Sundays back, at church, yes, at church of all places, I got into a short debate on the issue of health care in America. There were three of us in the debate, two of us displaying common ground and the third participant displaying hostility to any sort of exchange of ideas. It was his way or the highway.

I don’t want to get into a liberal versus conservative discussion here, or a left versus right. My purpose with today’s discussion is the idea of the idea behind the idea. The first “idea” is the one that  suggests everyone should be under a government (bureaucratic) run health care system. The idea behind the first one is that government should be involved in health care. The third idea is that people should to be cared for in some way by their government.

You may have focused on the word “idea.” That’s not the word that deserves your attention. “Should” is the word I want you to pay attention to. For within that word is the idea behind the ideas on health care that has the government involved.

Should: An auxiliary verb used to express obligation.

Ponder it. This is what is at the bottom of many of the bills and arguments for and against them that we Americans are faced with. We are fighting not about health care, but about what is government’s role in this? So I offer up for you another point of view that for me, at least, helps clarify the underlying issues.

The 20^th century thinker and psychoanalyst, Karen Horney made the case that those who self-loath are ruled by the “tyranny of shoulds.” I stumbled upon Horney’s phrase while pondering the question of why Western Civilization is so full of self-haters. Self-hate is a sign of neurosis. Meaning, in a mental health view of the world, the West has too many neurotics. And neurotics love to tell the world how it should be, or shouldn’t be. See what I mean about the “shoulds?” We should help the poor, we should insure everyone, we should tolerate others in spite of their differences; we should not be judgmental, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

In the day-by-day world, you can ignore a neurotic unless they need to interact with you, as in they’re your boss or spouse. Neurotics are difficult to deal with because they are a bundle of fears. Sometimes these fears manifest as the obvious self-hater and sometimes they manifest as arrogance, which is a front to cover their fears. The first type you have to have a lot of patience with. The second are impossible to work with because they are so damned defensive all the time. But what both types do have a tendency to do as to tell us how life should be lived. These are the souls who are behind all the health and environment “shoulds.”

You see how they are trouble? They vote. And they vote for other neurotics.

The difference between a liberal neurotic and a conservative neurotic is only in what they espouse, i.e. a conservative neurotic thinks only a man and woman should marry, and a liberal thinks everyone should pay for it. In other words, if you are about telling me what I (or we) should do in terms of our government, you too are a neurotic. And I would be very pleased if you would stay out of the voting booth.

I think that self-haters are so busy not paying attention to what really irks them that they turn it outward on the rest of us. Dr. Horney addressed the issues of childhood and what we don’t get from our parents can make us suffer as adults. (Ya think?) The theory is that if mommy or daddy doesn’t love the child, the child doesn’t love his own self. Yes, that is a difficult situation to come to terms with. It requires lots of the old soul searching, which we now refer to as depth psychology. It’s what Dr. Thomas Moore refers to as the pain of learning. It means standing in front of the mirror and looking into the self for the answers. ‘Cause you cannot change what happened. You can adjust your own perceptions to gain new perspectives.

Since it takes a lot of painful, laborious work to self-actualize it does become easier to “take on the world” instead. Believe me when I say that for the highly neurotic, the world’s problems are so much easier to deal with than their own. The good thing about dealing with the world’s problems is that they will never go away, so you have life-long employment or activities to keep you from yourself.

Those individuals in the world who like their lives, who understand the difference, of what they can accomplish and cannot, who comprehend that nothing is perfect, that life is messy and there are always errands to run and work to do, understand that attitude is the key to enjoyment of that life. One can be stuck in traffic and listen to music or one can rant and rave that there should be a law or better transportation system or what have you. The individual who is the master of himself does not feel the overwhelming need to control the outside world. The out-of-control individual, i.e. the neurotic, tends to look to the outside world for his fixes. If he can only change the world, he will be satisfied. If only greenhouse gases can be eliminated, the world will be clean. If only everyone can have full healthcare and not have the burden of paying for it, the world will be healthy. If only single mothers had daycare provided for them, the world’s children will be cared for. If only everyone would go to church on Sunday…

If only, if only if only.  I am creating a new diagnosis to go along with Dr. Horney’s tyranny of shoulds. The if only fantasy. If only the world would operate in a safe, humane way.  If only we would accept all people for who they are, feed, clothe and provide affordable housing…

Yes, it does sound good. But it is the fantasy of the unconscious or the not fully conscious individual. Multiply that by a few million and you see that for the rest of us, we have a problem because if these neurotics get their way it places an undo burden on the rest of us. Civilization’s gold is based on a few good rules, that when broken, invites chaos in. After chaos it will invite the strong arm of the narcissistic sociopath who knows an opportunity when he sees one. Because no matter how well the libertarian phrases his argument, no one likes living under anarchy unless they enjoy providing the strong arm.

The rational man and woman enjoy living under a few rules. In the United States we have a rulebook. Its title is The Constitution of the United States of America. Within its pages is laid out the rules on how we are supposed to play this game of life of “republican government, by the people, for the people and of the people.” It is a form of government that was designed for the rational individual. The difference between it and a democracy, a term we so erroneously use, is that safeguards are placed there to help keep the neurotics from manipulating the process.

We are now in danger of allowing the inmates of the neurotic asylum to take over not only the asylum but also the town in which it sits. This state of affairs, I will argue, has come about because these neurotics have been enabled to do so. Yet I won’t sit here and play a blame game. That is not the mission of my writing. My purpose is to make new arguments, to give you a different perspective on an ancient problem. Because it is the neurotics and their narcissistic handlers that cause the wars and the financial crisis time and time again. Totalitarian governments are the bane of the mature and the delight of the infant. Those who enjoy their maturity and adulthood have no problem with free association in all its forms. Those who hate having to grow up, and hate themselves, hate you too.

Christ was right. Love your neighbor as yourself. The reverse is also true. Hate your neighbor as yourself. And wish for misery for all.

It’s the culture, Mr. Iacocca

A Portuguese scientist once said to me that America was a great place because of its natural resources. No, I told him. Lots of nations have an abundance of natural resources. That is not what makes us great. It is our culture, the one our liberal Republic gave birth to that makes us unique. The concepts of equality, of self-reliance,  religious freedom, free speech and limited government is what renders us different. We gave the world something new to think about when we passed our Constitution and Bill of Rights in the late 18th Century. What our Founders did was reject European culture, which they thought of as old, tired and corrupt. America, I told him the man from Portugal, is really a story about the right people at the right place at the right time.

The original immigrants were a bunch of individualists who were escaping the collectivist ways of the Old Country. Some escaped for religious reasons, some for mercantile opportunities, both wanted more personal freedom. No matter their issues, these individuals were self reliant. Making the original 13 colonies that spread up and down the east coast  a hodge-podge of various faiths and political refugees. The one thing that bound them together was the fact that they preferred the harshness of having to build a new town in the wild then to deal with what they had back home. Think about this for a minute. Could you do it, build something out of nothing? That is what they did. But philosophically, something new was in the air. We now refer to it as individualism, the concept that a man owned his life. This is the heart and soul of American culture and the American form of government, which was the first liberal Republic established on the planet Earth.

It is this culture of individualism that is under assault. Call it what you will, socialism, fascism, Marxism, or indeed, democracy, the other side is about rule of the collective over the collective. To clarify, a small collective, usually referred to as the ruling class, technically labeled oligarch, makes broad decisions for the larger collective, referred to as “the people” but in reality, subjects. In that you are subject to the laws and edicts of the rulers, and as a subject you have only the rights that are given to you by those rulers.

In truth, all people, unless wild upon the hills or in the valleys below, agree to follow some sort of rule. This is in order for us to live together. The question becomes, under what system will you live?  Will you be ruled by others or by laws that are agreed upon? Culture determines political inclinations. In our culture we are inclined to live with liberty.

In his book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?, Lee Iacocca admits that while his immigrant father passed on his love of American culture to his children, Mr. Iacocca failed to gift his own offspring with the love and wisdom of the American way. Those of us who love this nation for what it is, that vision of the Founders, know very well that what Mr. Iacocca failed to do, millions of others did so also. Thus we are left with a great many haters of America. Many admit they detest what American stands for. Such an individual is easy to deal with. But others have not a clue why they dislike their nation. That is because they have no understanding of it. They believe the myths, not the facts. Many leaders come from this pool of citizens; men and women brought up on the myths. Is it any wonder we have a problem?

At the end of the movie, “Who Shot Liberty Valance?” the editor of the paper tears up the story that the journalist had written about the truth of an event that had transpired decades back. If you haven’t seen the film – I highly recommend it – the plot evolves around a group of characters in a western town after the Civil War. One of these characters, the antagonist, Liberty Valance (played by Lee Marvin,) is an evil man who is finally shot by, everything thinks, the mild mannered lawyer who ends up as a senator. (Played by Jimmy Stewart.)The truth is, his friend (played by John Wayne,) a rather rough man, but moral, shoots Valance from behind a building because the lawyer did not know how to use a gun. The future senator’s shot misses Valance, but Wayne’s character covers him and kills Valance. Decades later, when the journalist has learned the truth, that it was the Wayne character, not the Stewart character that killed Valance, the reason his editor gives for tearing up the story is because he wants everyone to believe the myth, i.e. that the senator shot Valance, not his friend.

It sounds good, doesn’t it, to let the myth live? But I think it’s a bad idea. When you watch the film there are so many morals in this tale that it almost overwhelms. (In another essay, we will talk about the film in depth.) But now I want to speak to the harm of mythologizing our American story when the facts, or what we have documented in letters, laws, declarations and other such concrete evidence, of the whys and wherefores of this nation, give us a better grounding. Because many of the myths have been used to slander the culture instead of praise it.

Not by any means do I think we were or are a perfect nation. Certainly, that the slavery issue was not dealt with in the beginning illustrates how America was not the dream come true for every human. It also showed that we were human; that our own values would be corrupted over time. Thus 233 years after the Declaration of Independence was written and delivered to a tyrannical king and parliament Mr. Iacocca laments the lack of leadership and his own culpability in our nation’s transformation.

For me, the most important statement in the book is the following: “You can’t get anything done by standing on the sidelines waiting for some else to take action.” Well, Mr. Iacocca, a great many Americans have heard and heeded your advice. They are streaming into town hall meetings, writing emails, calling their representatives, and, as you also suggested, they are coming off the golf courses to take action. What took them so long, I don’t know. But now that they have flexed their we-the- people muscles, my prayer is that they continue to do so. The pure, unadulterated fact is this: liberty is not free. Freedom takes work. And no one who wants it easily will get his wish unless he becomes a dependent of someone or something. As Heinlein so succinctly put it, “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” It is the our American tradition to NOT be controlled. Such an attitude – we refer to it as self-reliance – is one that built our nation. And that, dear friend, is the basis of American culture.

Reviewing Iacocca, Part 1

Recently I read Lee Iacocca’s book, Where Have All The Leaders Gone?  Since the title asks a question, the reader hopes to see an answer somewhere between the book’s covers. There is no answer. What you will find are Mr. Iacocca’s observations on life in the United States in late 2006 through 2007.

Like many Americans, I have admired Mr. Iacocca for his business acumen. What I really want to read and gain are his thoughts on how to get out of the present muddle. The book written with the assistance of a professional writer, reveals that Mr. Iacocca, through these observations, is just as confused as many others on the subjects of capitalism, the green movement and leadership itself. What he does get right is pointing out the insane “wars” we have engaged ourselves in, his own admitted failure to teach his children an appreciation for American culture and how important people are to an individual’s success.

Let’s look at the problems I have with Mr. Iacocca’s observations.

1. Confusion about capitalism
2. The green movement
3. Leadership

1. Capitalism
Mr. Iacocca asks a question in his chapter titled, “Is Capitalism Getting us Down?” He doesn’t really answer that question, except to comment about the lack of accountability that is so very prevalent in our nation. Hey Lee, tell us something we don’t know. The authentic answer is that it is not capitalism that is at fault. Capitalism is like money. It’s benign. It is what you do with it that produces either negative or positive results. I will add into this mix that I think Mr. Iacocca confuses capitalism with consumerism. The pursuit of things; money, houses, cars, what have you, is what leads people astray, not the investment of capital. But no man or woman of virtue gets caught up in the consumer game. So the real question needs to be “Is the lack of virtue getting us down?”  The answer, yes.

For a more complete comment on that question and answer, you will have to wait for my book, The Virtuous Consumer.

2. Going green
Mr. Iacocca, after all those years creating gas guzzlers for the American consumer has now found the green god. And I ain’t talking money here. Lots of folks find Jesus as they wind down their lives. The closer you come to the end of the road, the more you have to look back on, telling us, once again, hindsight is beautiful. Mr. Iacocca does belong to that generation, the so-called “greatest” that over indulged in just about everything in the material world. For them there was no tomorrow. For some, there still isn’t. At last, Mr. Iacocca has figured out that there is virtue (you’re going to see this word used several more times) in being frugal and clean. When I say frugal I not only mean with your money, but with our natural resources as well. This frugality is something that preservationist types, like me, understand. Instead of tearing something down, “recycle” it. Don’t throw things away, reuse them. My father, the original recycler, used to keep a junk pile in the back of our property. “Good junk” he called it because whenever he needed something, for a repair, or to construct, he went out to his good junk pile to take inventory before going to the store. I used to think he was strange, but now I understand how creative he truly is. Dad is country, a red neck, so he is not given to ravenous consumerism, you know, buy and toss and toss so that you can buy some more. Like his parents before him, you buy what you need, and buy quality so that it lasts. And if the price of gas goes up, walk more. That’s all there is to it.

3. Leadership
Leadership is crucial. Only anarchist libertarians think otherwise. The question Mr. Iacocca poses, however, is not worded well. Let me rephrase the question. “Where have all the virtuous leaders gone?” There’s that word again. Virtuous. Virtue. As in respecting the sovereignty of others. As in comprehending just because you want it doesn’t make it right or that others aught to pay for it because you put some nice sounding name onto it. (Health Car Reform) The phrase, “if it feels good do it” is not about virtue. Get it?
When it comes to leadership, Mr. Iacocca has a universal misconception. He is equating “good” leadership with the sort of leadership he would like to see.  In truth, there are no moral values that can be placed on the word. Like capitalism, it’s what one does with leadership that matters. There is, in truth, only effective leadership. A noneffective “leader” is not a leader at all. He, or she, is someone who gave it a try. When no one follows, no one leads.

Mr. Iacocca goes on and on about George Bush. I too, did not like many of the programs President Bush put into effect. But he was a very strong leader because he was an effective leader. Most of what he wanted he got. Meaning he convinced others to follow his lead. Get it, Mr. Iacocca? That is leadership. The problem Mr. Iacocca has with Mr. Bush is that he disagrees with Bush’s values. But disagreeing with someone doesn’t negate their leadership abilities. Indeed, this is a dangerous route to take, because if more people had taken Mr. Bush seriously as a leader, they would have had more success in calling a halt to his more nefarious programs like the Patriot Act. But wait. There’s this aspect: I do not hear Mr. Iacocca calling for the heads of the senators and congress people who actually passed the act. The president of the United States cannot get shit done without the legislative branch to vote on it. That little war in Iraq? Go to congress. Ask them about it.

Mr. Iacocca does a bit of name dropping throughout the book. But not once does he mention the name of the most steadfast supporter of the Unites States Constitution: Ron Paul.  Dr Paul voted against the war, against the Patriot Act and does not vote for a lot of those issues Mr. Iacocca bitches and moans about. Funny how Dr. Paul is not one of Iacocca’s “friends.” Mr. Iacocca, like so many men who have held powerful positions in business and know powerful friends in government, has forgotten that it’s the Constitution of the Unites States we are all supposed to follow. From the most powerful to the most humble, under that document, we are all created equal.  My suggestion to Mr. Iacocca, is for him to take a good long read of the Constitution. It truly is a document about placing limits on our government. No matter who is in empowered to lead the country.
In my next essay I will deal with what I like about Mr. Iacocca’s book.

Real Men

Last week I read an essay by one Robin of Berkeley, who titled her piece, Are Men Obsolete? I confess, I love to read about women that have re-discovered men. While reading the piece, I wondered, where did Robin think men went? Or did she think men were a part of a lost continent? And,  after wandering around in the leftist desert, she found their continent? Or perhaps it is Robin who lost herself in that far off la-la land wherein everyone is the same?

Now that’s a nightmare. And the truth is it is Robin who was lost.

Robin’s thesis is this:  liberalism has destroyed “real” men. You know the sort of guys I am talking about: the ones who hunt, who are not all that “in-touch” with their inner woman, the guys who like a cold beer while watching three TV screens simultaneously; one playing the game, the second, another game and the third has the Nascar race. I know this sort of thing goes on because this is exactly what my son does on most Sunday afternoons during football season. I don’t know if that makes him a real man. But I do know not to call him on Sunday afternoons during football season.

I also know that Robin still doesn’t get it.

Football and beers is not what makes a man “real.” Plenty of liberals watch football with a cold beverage in their hand.  Indeed, Sunday afternoon can be referred to as “boy” time. Surely Robin, who is a psychotherapist, understands this aspect. Nor is it the ownership of an SUV or pickup that renders a male manly. But Robin resides in Berkeley, so she still has a long ways to go on this profound journey of discovering men. And it’s a tough road to take because of the milieu of that city. So Robin needs to get out a little to interact with men from other places. My suggestion is that she throw the modern city out for a spell and hang out with guys who trap, hunt and do a little trekking in order to discover the true usefulness of the male in our world on a basic level.

My thesis is that Robin has placed the cart before the horse. It’s not liberalism; it’s modernism that is the horse that pulls liberalism along. Without this highly civilized world that we live in, liberalism would be a fantasy to be laughed at. But modernism makes much of what liberals want possible.  The industrial revolution gave us Karl Marx and the wealthy middle class Henry David Thoreau. Yet there is irony here. Tough men and the women beside them, created the structure for the modern world. This allowed a weakening of both men and women. At the same time, a new movement came along (environmentalist or earth or green, what have you) that seeks to destroy a part of the modern world. Which would render us closer to nature resulting in a toughening of humans. In other words, men would be men again. And women would appreciate them.

Appreciation for men is Robin’s real message. And I think she will come to see this in time. That maleness is not about cars or games, it’s about action. For throughout history men have been in touch with their feminine side more than we moderns either care to admit or don’t want to get into. Some of the meanest, orneriest hombres around wore makeup and jewelry. They wore gowns for formal occasions and liked to be clean. They wrote love poems in between battles and sometimes they loved other men. If I were to name the difference of men now and men then it would be this: a man was certain of his place in the world. He would be the head of at least his own household. Insecurity took other forms, but gender wasn’t one of them. Men were men and women were women. Yet women were owners of a variety of business, were involved in their community and though they could not hold office, you bet they spoke their minds plenty when it came to politics. So you won’t find me blaming the feminists for what ails our civilization.

The bigger responsibility, I will argue, goes to Thoreau. That’s right, a guy. He of the “quiet desperation” theme is someone revered by most liberals. Between the two, Marx and Thoreau, it is the latter that I think deserves the most disdain. Gee I admit I may be smashing myths, but I rather like the idea. Because I hear men quote Thoreau a lot, but not in happy moods. And herein, I believe, lies the difference between men and men.

Real men accept life on its own terms. Real men are not given to bitching and moaning over their “lot in life.” They are not victims. Real men understand that everyone has moments of quiet desperation but the trick is to adjust the attitude, to take control of one’s inner life and let the spirit, which is always positive, direct the life. Because men are not their vehicles or their genitalia: They are their decisions. Every time a male decides to take on those tough aspects of life, like defending his family or his country, he has decided to be a man. Every moment he chooses to spend fathering his children with guidance, he is behaving as a man. When he tells the truth, lives up to his promises, treats his wife with respect, even when she has been bitchy, he has decided to be a man.  The guy who takes the time to pleasure his woman reeks of maleness. When he decides to give up boyish things in order to advance himself in life, the boy has decided to become a man. This is what Conservative men are about. While liberals are encouraged to look to another father, i.e. the government, to succor them, real men find it within themselves to grow up.

Yes, I love such men. With or without an SUV, the Conservative man understands that he is his own engine.  That he cannot do for others what they aught do for them selves. Conservative men are good fathers because they recognize that life is difficult and that at times, one must fail in order to learn the great lessons. The Conservative dad, and by extension, citizen, applies this across the board. That to subject entire groups or single out “special” individuals in order to “give them a helping hand” many times destroys rather than builds up. Men are so much better at comprehending this than women, at allowing the hard lessons to be learned, that this is why we need them so terribly much in our lives, constantly.

Therefore, the answer to Robin’s question of men being obsolete, is this. Hell no! Real women need real men; real kids need real dads. And the real world needs real men.

H-Rations

Would healthcare be rationed under a national plan?

But of course.

Should this be allowed?

Yes!

What?

You heard me.

I’m a compassionate Gnostic. That’s rather like a being a Buddhist or a loving parent. I think you should have every experience that you think you want. This comes under the concept of “sometimes you give people what they want” because until they can taste it, feel it, live it, they don’t really know what it is they are asking for. That it is, therefore, necessary to have a direct experience in order to achieve enlightenment. Many times these hands on experiences can be hurtful. But I take the Nietzsche stand here: what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. And smarter. Hopefully.

The law of supply and demand will not be repealed under a universal health care system. No matter how entitled you believe you are to healthcare, thinking the laws of nature won’t apply to you won’t change a thing.  When everybody can have at it, baby, it’s going to get crowded in the room.  The second law that will remain in force is the lack of compassion Big Government will display. There will be no special cases. Just numbers. As in take a number. Seeing, and experiencing, those two laws will be stage one in the process of enlightenment for everyone who thought Government could do a better job.

Perhaps, and here comes my fantasy, at this point the people will have had enough of waiting in lines to understand that national healthcare is not the answer. But misery can be so seducing. It will probably take a little more detailed suffering, like being denied treatment because of age. At that point one will simply get to die. Longevity by medical intervention will end. And that will save billions all by itself.

Early death for those who believe in eternal life should not be such a big deal. Muslims will get to their virginal Paradise sooner, and Christians to heaven years earlier. No more long waits for Hindus and Buddhists to get on to their next life. I’m not certain what Jews believe, but I do feel sorry for atheists.  So while healthcare for all may mean waiting in line for treatment there will be a shorter wait for burial.

What will be done for those whose bodies need little care but their minds have gone flat with dementia is anybody’s guess. Rumors already abound about how Boomers with Alzheimer’s will finish off Medicare. Perhaps that’s when human euthanasia will be encouraged.

Warms the heart, doesn’t it?

Yes, bring on that rationing. Perhaps then we can take a more natural view of life as nature will have more sway, modern medicine less. Such nonsense like”40 is the new 50” will be reversed, and 40 will be 40 once again. Who knows, we might even push our children to grow up faster, well they will have to in order to get to work sooner to pay for a medical system that will grow by leaps and bounds. Say, why not bring back child labor to help pay for this? If your child works, no one will resent him.

Yes, you can say that universal healthcare will be the great equalizer. Except for the Government. But I digress. For the moment.

Let’s look at this  “health care crisis” with a little more hard headedness. What do we see out there? Supposedly there are some 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. But that is not really true. Those uninsured that have no assets, no house, no stocks and bonds and no savings, will be covered by you, the taxpayer. Much of this comes from those rising premiums you keep complaining about. It’s not because you got sick, it’s them, “out there” who think the “government” pays for their health care when they refuse to buy it. What these individuals need to understand is that the “government” is we the people. You. Me.

But we cover more than the “uninsured.” We also cover those over 65, illegal immigrants and our senators, congress members, the president, the VP the entire cabinet and bureaucrats everywhere. Indeed, the only “uninsured” who gets to pay enormous medical bills is someone who actually works and owns something. So it does make sense, on the surface, to think “hey, I am paying for all this anyway, why not me too? Why don’t I get in on the deal?”

Fair enough. But if Americans do decide to go down this road, they then must be willing to pay the price. Not in terms of money, but in terms of control. Obama has left no doubts that he wants to be daddy dearest and tell us how to run our lives. Make that run them for us. He is easing into playing dictator quite well with his firing and hiring of CEOs and cutting lenders out of the deal with Chrysler. He tells Israel what to do and seems okay with other dictators around the world. And he has only just begun.
What’s next?

Do you really want to know? Are you that naïve to think that Big Government will look out for you, the Little Guy or Gal?
Big Government is going to look out for Big Business. Because when you are BIG you deal better with others who are BIG. The Great Dictator is mixing Big Government with Big Bigness and Big Unions as I write this. So embrace rationing, except for those of you who are smart enough to run for and win a political office. You are the powerful, and none of the rules will apply to you.

The disfavored – that’s us – must embrace the end of choices, of choosing your own doc, where you will be treated and how. Kiss it goodbye. Embrace dying young. It’s okay. Living a shorter life means those you leave behind might actually miss you because you will not live long enough to become a “dead in the head burden” with a body wandering around looking for its memories. So forgo the dementia and the warehousing that follows and most especially, turning over control of you to your kids. Perish that thought! Embrace death taxes while you’re at it, and leaving nothing to your kids because Big Government gets first dibs. It always does. And while you’re at it, embrace corruption as you learn to bribe doctors and hospital administrators so that they will take better care of your loved one.

Don’t believe that these things will happen? Then I suggest you see the Canadian movie, The Barbarian Invasions. (Netflix has it.)

When you decide you have had enough of taking numbers for medical treatment and waiting months to see a surgeon, well, that’s when you will know what to do. And it will not be pretty.

Or, just say no now.

What’s it going to be, America?

Marriage Outside the Box II

Note: It is suggested that you gain a rudimentary knowledge of the history of marriage. You will find such a quick and easy review of that history on my Time Traveler Diary.

What does it mean to us in our 21st century culture in the West to have same sex couples married? How will it change us as a civilization?

The first question can be answered many different ways. The second is one we won’t be able to answer until a generation has grown up in such a “new world.” Though I confess, many of us who are weary and wary of social experiments gone awry can’t wait to NOT find out. And that is, I argue, a valid point. We have lots of historical precedence in our nation that amply demonstrates all those social experiments that have gone haywire. Therefore, social conservatives cannot be dismissed as evil because of their traditional view of the world. Those who do belittle social conservatives, show a lack of honest intellectual pursuit. They, the social liberals, almost demand that everyone simply accept the upturned apple cart of traditional marriage that they propose.

In all fairness to the social experimenters, marriage as defined in the Webster’s doesn’t always mention “a man” and “a woman.” Here is the 4th definition from the 1957 edition of Webster’s Collegiate: “4. Any close or intimate union.” [Emphasis added.] Under number 4, just about any relationship can be considered a marriage, meaning one doesn’t necessarily have to have the license in order to “be married.” All that aside, what same sex couples desire goes beyond the legalese. They seek, and here is the modern irony, those emotional and psychological benefits that only marriage can bestow. (For more on this, read the book The Case for Marriage.) While thousands of heterosexuals have sworn off marriage, the homosexuals (not all) get it, that nothing stabilizes life like marriage. (See my Time Traveler Diary for more on this aspect.)

Don’t think I am giving social conservatives a pass here. They have a little intellectual pursuing that needs doing as well. As in why they seem to go along with a state issuing a license to marry in the first place – which is a new occurrence in the history of the world – and where are they on “no-fault” divorce, one of the biggest scourges around? Talk about a destroyer of marriages and families, it doesn’t get any better than no-fault, which is in, reality, unilateral divorce. With “modern” divorce, it doesn’t take two to tango. Only one disgruntled spouse is needed to end a marriage.

Before 1969 in the state of California, one had to have grounds to get a divorce. Those grounds were such issues as adultery, mental or physical cruelty, a spouse convicted of a crime and desertion. No-fault divorce came into existence because the legal community wanted to make divorce easier to obtain. They gave all sorts of reasons why they thought this would be a good idea. The number one reason was so a couple would not have to resort to a fiction of why their marriage had broken, if there were no grounds for  a divorce. In other words, couples used to lie in order to obtain a divorce. Fake affairs would be “set up.” Or the grounds of “mental cruelty” would be used because it is open to interpretation. If a spouse contested the divorce, that spouse  at least had a shot of saving his or her marriage. Ditto when young children were involved.

Not so today. Any spouse for whatever reason, and for no reason, may leave the marriage without so much as a howdy-do. You can be the best husband or wife, and still be left standing alone while you ponder all day and all night, “what did I do wrong?” Nothing. And everything. Or, it could be said the wrong thing you did was to marry that person in the first place.

That’ll teach ya. Just don’t get married, period. And hundreds of thousands do not.

In her seminal work, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, Judith Wallerstein makes the point quite clear; there is no such thing as a good divorce. Everyone involved, especially the children, suffer from its effects forever. FOREVER. I know this is so because my own parents divorced when I was a child. And I still wish, when the nights are dark and lonely, that my parents could have stayed together. Certainly, intellectually, I understand why they divorced. But in my heart? Never. After reading Wallerstein’s book I now know I am not alone in that suffering. So when the social conservatives make hay about same-sex marriage, the question has to be asked. What are you doing to insure opposite sex marriages stay together? Hmmm?

To me, the true issue is this idea that only the state can regulate marriage. Well, it can’t. If it could, there would be no unilateral divorce. Since legal minds state that the marriage contract is not enforceable, then let’s stop playing this game. Because, I will argue, a private contract is a much better idea. As a fiscal conservative, I want to see the costs of divorce strictly borne by those getting the divorce. Private marriages mean private divorces. Those couples desirous of a religious wedding will have to fulfill the requirements of the particular religious institutions.  Ditto with a divorce. Ditto the adoption of children. Make them all private, meaning give folks real choices as to how they wish to arrange their private lives.

In summation, bring back the private and enforceable marriage contract as a way to make the choice of whom you marry a more deliberative one. It is also a way in which to slow down a breakup. Then if two men or two women choose to “marry” tis no body’s business if they do. What a real marriage contract will point out is that only mature adults should marry. It is not for children, no matter how old they are.

Marriage Outside the Box, Part 1

Only those locked in a cage somewhere in outer space have not heard about the Miss California flap. There has been much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth on the Right and joyful viciousness on the Left. If you haven’t heard about it, first, I want to welcome you back to civilization, and second, you may want to think about going back to that cage in outer space.

Using the 25 words or less method, here’s what happened. During the Miss USA pageant, Miss California answered a direct question with a direct answer. No, she does not believe in “gay marriage.” With her words a firestorm was unleashed.

The “gay marriage” issue is not going to go away until Islam takes over the world.

I bet that got your attention.

The world Islam would like to control is a very confused and messy place. Besides the usual challenges of keeping bodies and souls together, we have the economy, world terrorism, illegal immigrants and global warming to contend with along with a culture that is changing rapidly, as in a generation that grew up in largely a heterosexual world is seemingly morphing into a multi-gendered one where anything not only goes, it is now legally sanctioned. Like same sex marriage. Yes the idea that two people of the same sex would marry is, on the surface, outrageous. There is no historical precedence for it, nor does such a relationship have a parallel in nature that we can point to and say, “See, they do it.”  This notion has as its basis the concept that states should legalize matrimony. Same sex marriage, then, is one of the unintended consequences of the enlightenment of the 18th century.

The traditionalists see same sex marriage as a revolutionary march into hell for the culture. The metro group, made up of social liberals of all stripes, not just lefties, views it as an evolutionary change. California, where I reside most of the year, has a population of nearly 37,000,000. Of that population, approximately 186,000 are a part of a gay couple. Based on the national average of 7.6 percent, there are, in California, approximately 281,200 gays/lesbians. Therefore, what we are discussing here is marriage for this small group of people.  How I arrived at this estimation is by reading over the census data contained on this site: http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000_Census_Total.htm. I chose the middle percentage (7.6, I always choose the middle figure) because I believe the 10 percent is way too high, and the 2.7 a bit low.

When most folks are queried about same sex unions, there is more compassion than hostility. A great many Americans do feel that same sex couples need legal protections as well as legal rights that are basically marriage rights. The problem is when labeling it “marriage” it doesn’t sit well with a great deal of folks. Miss California is one of them. So the question becomes how did such a small percentage of the population get so much control over this conversation?

Well, we, sort of, invited it in. Let me explain.Traditionalists failed to evolve. Those who cry the loudest against gay marriage have been absent on the marriage front for a long time. They have addressed contemporary issues using religion as their backup on why folks need to marry traditionally. Those arguments hold no water in a highly secularized city, where most of the population reside. In short, traditionalists need to look in the mirror and place blame on themselves as the”other partner” in this tango. It goes back to the old theory that if you are not a part of the solution you are a part of the problem. The Left loves this theory because lefties wants to politicize everything. If all problems in life have a political solution then big government has a job to do. So naturally, the Left loves the concept of gay marriage. It brings gays, who used to be rebels with a cause, into the fold.

Since the left has a track record of taking the low road whenever they need to in order to get their way, no one need be surprised that Miss California got dumped on.  If Miss California had lost her crown, the left would have successfully politicized a beauty contest. But I believe Donald Trump saw through that one and on to the bigger danger. Which is this. It would have been a return to the days when women were to behave. Answer the way you are supposed to, dear. Don’t think for yourself, do not be bold, be a good little girl. How boring is that? Very. The Miss USA program would become a channel turner.

What I suggest is that social conservatives  start changing this conversation, and redirect it. They can challenge the concept of the state having the authority over marriage in the first place. Think this through thoroughly, my friends. What business does the state have in issuing a marriage license? This is especially directed at religious people. It is only too obvious that, in the west, a marriage license has become an invitation to a divorce rendering it a mockery of marriage because that piece of paper is meaningless. A state that requires it really cannot force you to keep it intact. Indeed, on that end of marriage, divorce, the state admitted 40 years back that it couldn’t keep people married. So if you are powerless on that end, why not give up the power on the front end?

Stop thinking marriage will crumble if gays marry. Marriage has already crumbled. Instead, start thinking outside the box. Start thinking about how to rebuild marriage. And to do that, get the politics out of it. Start thinking new language, a new song to drown out that cacophony of hate from the Left.

The above suggestion is based on the theory that sometimes you just have to give people what they want. And then some.

Part Two will address the new rumblings, from the multi-spouse groups.

Paranoia Strikes

“Paranoia strikes deep,  into your life it will creep”*

The word, paranoia, is a psychiatric term given to a person who suffers from delusions of grandeur or persecution. In the vernacular, it has come to mean the person suffers from the idea that someone “out there” is watching him and means to do him harm or is out to get him. The person absolutely believes that he, or she, is on somebody’s list. It doesn’t always have to be a personal fear. It can be about a loved one or a place. One can address the paranoid’s fears, and show him how it is a delusion, but never mind that. It is like prying a bone out of the throat of a choking dog; you will get bit for your trouble.

Okay, so bite me. But first read what I have to say. Like all the other crazy things I have been known to do, this action is taken, the writing of this commentary, because it is necessary to at least say something about the paranoia that is now making the rounds of the conservatives. The specific item that caught my attention recently was a post from Northeast Intelligence Network, which is the creation of Douglas Hagmann. In this post, Hagmann writes a warning that the FBI is watching Tea Party participants. Hagmann, it has to be pointed out, is a writer who uses a lot of “unnamed sources.”

The first thing I ask is what are you supposed to do with this information? If you are a boomer, and protested the war in Viet Nam decades back, this warning is a ho-hum. We always thought we were being watched and that soon, very soon, men in black coats would come and drag us out of our beds at night to interrogates us and then place us in concentration camps. None of that, of course, ever happened. Part of our reason back then for being so paranoid is because half of the participants were smoking pot, which has a way of inducing delusional thinking – that’s why pot heads smoke it. Reality can be left behind for an hour or two.

I don’t think a lot of conservatives are smoking pot. Of course, I could be wrong, but for the sake of argument, let’s say most are sober. And still, the paranoia strikes anyway. So let us examine this idea of the FBI watching Tea Partyers. Maybe they watch a few of you. I will believe that. But all? Are you kidding? Do you really think the 12,000 members of the FBI, many who are simple office jockeys and people in labs, can get a handle on over 700,000 protesters in over 500 locations? And the old line of “taking photos of license plates” is an old one that I haven’t heard since the sixties. And so what?

Yes, no one likes the invasion, but there are more of us than them. And if an FBI guy does come knocking on your door in the middle of the night (dramatic music here) call a ghoul, an ACLU lawyer. He will only be too happy to take your side because members of the ACLU find law enforcement even more despicable than they do a conservative. But if you really don’t like invasions of your privacy, what are you doing on the Internet?

Dear people, a few FBI taking down license plates is not what you need to worry about. What really should chill your bones is what Obama and his circle have actually done. Historically speaking, dictators tell you what they are going to do before they do it. Dictators are not men or women with secrets. They are open books. Hitler was a surprise only to those who did not bother to read his book or listen to what he had to say. Everyone knew what Stalin was about, except for those lefties in the United States who would never fault him, even as he murdered millions of his subjects. And yes, I use the word “subject” on purpose. There were no citizens under creeps like Stalin or Sadam. Only subjects.

One of the main differences between a subject and a citizen is fear. People full of fear are easily subjugated. So my suggestion to you is to have no fear. If you are G-d fearing, then you know we have been promised that we will not be abandoned. “Have no fear for I am with you.” So go boldly out to protest and do not give law enforcement a second thought. And if you should catch someone taking down information, talk to that person. Take a lesson from the left, who have been very successful in bringing their program to fruition. Radicalize people. Carry a flower and a copy of the Declaration of Independence or a pocket book copy of the Constitution. And give those documents, along with the flower, to that FBI agent. Or to anyone you see ridiculing the movement. Finally, we are not out there simply to protest, but to lead our fellow Americans back to the American Way. Do it with the same love you have for this beloved nation.

And dump the paranoia.

For What Its Worth by Buffalo Springfield