This is the holiday season of the year. My family generally celebrates the season by having some type of party. Most of the family consists of Middle Aged Adults (my wife’s children) some who are Old, and one who is Very Old. There are two young boys (sixteen and twelve) who look forward to presents, which is understandable. What I didn’t really understand is that all of the Middle Aged and Old people (myself excluded) think that exchanging presents is a grand idea.

Now, before you think that I am really the reincarnation of Ebenezer Scrooge I want to tell you that I am not opposed to giving of presents; but I need some guidance. This year I received guidance which is absolutely incomprehensible. Thus the conundrum.

It all started off innocently. I received an email which was the beginning of the planning for our family party. Our choices were the following: (remember this email was sent primarily to Middle Aged Adults and Seniors)

1. Do nothing; just get gifts for the grandchildren. They are 16 and 12. They like receiving meaningful gifts, such as Kindles.)
2. Pick names like we have done in the past. Everyone buys a gift for one person who is selected by drawing names from a hat. This invariably throws me into an agony of trying to figure out what to do since I never pick me, by circumstance and by the rules.
3. Do a White Elephant swap where you bring a wrapped gift and give it to someone. You don’t know if the person is Middle Aged or Old, nor whether they are male or female.
4. Pick your own theme and buy everyone something little within that theme. Some ideas could be books, socks, chocolate, candles, picture frames, pens, gift cards, tea/coffee, etc. This way everyone has a number of little presents to open.

My opinion was not solicited (they know me for many years, but due to a mistake in the transmission of the email they requested my vote). Now you can test how well you understand me: what did I chose? Number One (1), of course. What was the actual outcome of vote? It was to exchange white elephants: Number Three (3).

OK, I am a reasonably good sport. Yesterday I told my beloved, understanding, and long suffering wife that I was going to buy the White Elephant present. She looked at me, furrowed her brow, pursed her lips, and then said, “Remember—the present is to be a MEANINGFUL White Elephant.” Then she turned on her heel and left. I was completely perplexed. What the hell is a Meaningful White Elephant? I decided to act on my own and throw caution to the winds. (This is just an expression. I actually began to worry about what I was going to do, since my wife has powers which are unknown to humanity as a whole. Discretion is the better part of valor….or something like that.

Now you understand my conundrum. What in the hell is a White Elephant gift? I don’t know where to find a white elephant, and if I did, what would I feed it, and, why would someone want to have it?

OK, you say. I can envision you sitting and reading column and shaking your head. Fair enough. Now let me put this with a little more precision. All the possible receivers of this unknown and unspecified White Elephant gift are ADULTS. Do you understand me? ADULTS! So I am requested to go buy a White Elephant and spend money (roughly $30) on some unknown and unspecified object from some unknown and unspecified place and give it to some unspecified ADULT who is either Male or Female.

Using my natural inclination toward analysis, I went to Google and looked for stores that offer WHITE ELEPHANTS. Here is the Wikipedia answer: A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam (now Thailand) were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals (White Elephants) to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered to be without use or value. The answer from Google was intellectually of interest, but hardly of operational value.

I sat for a while and thought. This is a serious issue. My conundrum gets worse: If I buy something truly idiotic (all possible presents for these ADULTS strike me as truly idiotic, but this is a story for another day), my beloved wife will have some clear and focused comments to make. Hmmm. So, I will try to buy something sensible. But what WHITE ELEPHANT gift is sensible, for ADULTS all in Middle or Old Age?

Now, if possible, things got worse. My family members are just THRILLED about exchanging unknown, non-gag gifts, for unspecified people (men or women) and can hardly wait for the event to occur.

The tension was overwhelming. I went to a store which was crowded with shoppers, but which had a variety of options, maybe. My choice was influenced because I had received a 20% discount label. I entered the store, and was approached by an employee who nicely asked what I wanted.

“The General Manager, please,” I politely answered.

“Can’t I help you,” asked the employee?”

“Are you the General Manager,” I responded.

“Well, no. (A pause). I will get her.”

I waited for a few moments, and up comes a rather striking looking, middle aged woman, who is the General Manager. It says so on her ID Tag.

“Can I help you?” she asked, nicely.

“I certainly hope so,” I said. “I am completely out of my league.”

She smiled.

I then explained to her what was going on. She smiled more broadly, and then began to laugh. She continued to giggle, nodded her head and told me to wait for her to come back in a few moments.

A few moments later she returned with half a dozen items that had been cut by roughly 80% of their original price.

The first one was a white sheepskin cover for an iPad. It was available for $2.99. But, I thought, not all the people I have to give a present to have iPads. In fact, only my wife has an iPad. I mused. What a nice surprise gift. (Taking care and looking for safety is always a good idea. Here was the ideal choice, and for $2.99 I look like a thoughtful, caring, thinking husband.)

The second one was a little stereo speaker device that plugs into your computer using the USB connection. That was actually nice, and $5. OK, it isn’t really a White Elephant, although with built in speakers in all current computers, it is sort of a White Elephant. I could argue that it was a Meaningful White Elephant.

Finally, she produced the ultimate: an M&M Fan. Not only was it $3; it had a small supply of M&Ms in the handle, and, was a small fan which actually worked to cool you off when you need moving air. The PERFECT White Elephant.

The General Manager thought these were wonderful; actually, she thought they were hilarious. Privately she admitted that the buyers of this stuff should have been fired, but she then shrugged her shoulders. Win some; lose some.

I asked her for some something to wrap this stuff in and she gave me three individual size boxes and wrapping paper.

I thanked her profusely and offered to write a very clear and focused email to her bosses, praising her to the skies, and helping her with her career. She thanked me and said that wasn’t necessary. She then added that I was one of the more unusual customers they had this season, and she hopes to see me again. I told her that I was a regular, if infrequent customer. In essence, they sell nothing that I need. She laughed and said to please come back.

I am ready for the great family event. I am certain that I have failed the test completely.

When the presents are exchanged, everyone will roll their eyes, sadly shake their heads, and talk about something else.

What is bizarre about this entire discussion is that while I attempted to write it in a jocular fashion, I do not find this entire affair even remotely amusing. In fact, if you wish me to be precise about it, I find that dealing with the adults in this group of people is mind-boggling.

Normally I would ask if there is something wrong with me. But I know the answer. Yes, Virginia, there is something wrong with me. It is not the rest of my family; they are sane, reasonably educated, intelligent people. By definition, they represent the norm of the population, out to at least two sigma points (98% of the US population). They think this event and White Elephant gift exchange is just a peachy idea.

I think that I have nothing more to say on this subject.

I hope you all have a wonderful holiday season. Think kindly of me.  

I have finally gotten angry. All the previous news about Congress, their behavior, and the attendant support by only nine percent of the voting public made me shake my head in sorrow, and with some frustration. But I just shrugged my shoulders and sighed. No longer.

The news item, aired on the CBS Show 60 Minutes on Sunday evening 13 November 2011 explained that Congressmen, several of which were named, had used private information to purchase stocks for their own advantage. This process, called Insider Trading, if done by someone who is not a Congressman, is illegal. Recently many people have gone to jail for their actions, but not Congressmen. So, what can be done about their disgraceful behavior?

We could request they pass laws forbidding such behavior. However, that would mean they would pass laws restricting their own behavior. Not highly probable. I have another suggestion.

I think that all the hackers in the United States should hack into the financial records of all pertinent companies and examine the financial transactions of all Congressmen. Then, that data should be posted on a web site, which would be equivalent to the famous WikiLeaks case.

I personally would like to see any one who is caught attempting hacking to be excused, but that is too difficult to implement. Furthermore, hackers know that hacking into electronic data bases is illegal. They don’t care. I would like to point out that such data bases are not owned by the United States government and therefore, do not constitute a threat to national security.

Further, I suggest that when (not if) a hacker and their friends are successful, they should post all the pertinent data on the Internet, and in addition, even send electronic files to all the large news organizations throughout the Congressional District of the Congressman. Such an action might have an effect on the potential reelection of the Congressman.

I think it is a neat, and operationally feasible idea. Make the bastards live in fear.  

I have been thinking about our system of government in the United States. Winston Churchill stated: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I agree.

I think one of the problems is that we have evolved from a concept of part time politicians (think of the Founding Fathers in the 1770s) to full time politicians who consider serving an entire career in politics at the local, state, and national levels. There are families which have passed their positions on to their sons and grandsons. I think that this is not a good idea, and even worse in practice.

Does this mean that there are political families in the United States who do not merit their positions? No, that is not what I said. They have to stand for office, and must persuade their constituents to vote for them at each election. But the continuation of a family tradition is conducive to establishing in the electorate a habit of automatically voting for a family name. I do not think this is a good thing in a representative democracy.

Is there a small modification to how we elect our public officials to remove this possible problem? I think so. I would like to suggest that some changes be instituted in how our representative government works. As much as I am uneasy about the idea, I think that we, as an electorate, should consider the establishment of term limits. These term limits should be worked out and applied at every level. We do so for the President of the United States (only two terms allowed). Why not consider an extension of the concept for all elected political offices? This would be at the national, state, and local levels. People would run for office because they wish to support their fellow citizens, and obtain experience which will allow them to be capable of playing more prominent and higher roles with greater responsibilities. In addition, there arises the potential reduction of graft and corruption at every level. Graft and corruption in government is as old as the concept of government itself. If a politician stays in office as a lifetime job he (or she) is potentially vulnerable to the inducements of feathering their own nests. And, given their political power, they make potential prey for special interests. One way to stop this, or at least hinder it, is to have term limits for all offices.

I am suggesting that all publicly elected offices from the Presidency of the United States down to the election of the local dog catcher, should have term limits. I am not proposing how long these should be, but I think they should exist. For example, there should be only five terms for a member of the House of Representatives. I don’t suggest that this necessarily be the number; but I do suggest that there should be a number. Now, for a little additional changes. Once a member of the house has run the gamut of the number of terms, they cannot be elected again for that generic position (being a member of the House) until the same number of terms has passed while they are out of office. So, continuing the example, if a member is elected to the House of Representatives for five terms, then they cannot run for that office again until five terms (ten years) has passed. They can immediately run for other office (Governor of the State, Senator from the State, etc.) But they can’t run for a House Seat for ten years.

One major objection concern will be the lack of experience in our elected officials. I suggest that this might be overcome by continuing to have professional employees of the local, state, and national governments. But, now I would like to suggest that if they are professional employees, then cannot run for political office: ever. They can participate in the representative process either as elected members of the government, with associated term limits, or, they can be professionals with appropriate skills, but can’t run for public office. A nice balance of forces. The elected politicians, in essence, steer the ship of state; the professional employees make it work.

What else do I suggest? There is no question that external forces will make an effort to influence the political process through bribery and coercion. But now the organizations with chicanery in their heart will have to work in reduced time. And the pressure of making things rapidly happen generally means that mistakes will be made. Good. We will catch more of them on both the political side and the business, unions, and others who wish to coerce our public servants. In addition, I suggest that there be an increase in the severity of the penalties if they are caught. Not substantial increases, but enough for those to understand that getting caught will have very serious, permanent consequences. For example, no political office can ever be held again, nor can they ever again work for the public in a professional capacity. And the firms will suffer severe, but not necessarily fatal, economic consequences.

I want ambitious, active citizens to run for lots of political offices in our representative democracy. I want the applicants and entrants in the race for public office to be successful, and I want them to take postures which will help their fellow citizens. I do not want to establish family legacies who will serve and eat at the public trough for generations.

Will this mean smooth sailing for the future? It does not. But it will make things come to a steady boil which is good for all concerned: the public, the government, and the government employees. 

We are a unique country. There is no other nation in the world that has the turmoil, freedom of action, and devotion to the principles on which the country was founded with the same intensity that we have. We are truly a nation of immigrants. And, it has worked very well for over two hundred years. 

Our political system is one of the principles of democracy, or at least representative government, free speech, etc. The Bill of Rights has put it very well, and it has stood the test of time. Court decisions have reinforced this with each decision. The concept of “one man, one vote,” has become and remains the watchword of how we think of our selves and our representatives. There are many difficulties with our system of government, but it is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s comment, way ahead of whatever is in second place. The path to political power in the United States is based upon ambition, capability, and other spurs to human endeavor. Birth is not the path to political power; in fact, it is frequently a drawback. But if you are ambitious, educate yourself, work hard, and to some extent, lucky, you can rise to the top of the political ladder. President Obama and Speaker of the House Boehner are wonderful but not unusual examples of the opportunity to be masters of their own destiny. There have been many who climb to power, and that is exactly how it should be. 

But the current situation is dangerous, and shows itself to be potentially of great harm to our nation. Let me step back for a moment and point out a little history. We have not been a ideal place in which to live for all of our citizens all of the time. Slavery was a major issue, and only in the past half century or so has the concept of Civil Rights truly risen to provide almost equality among all races and all religions. Things are not perfect, but much better than before, and, they seem to be getting better. Perfection is always a goal, but never achieved. We can always do better. 

The history of labor and business has been checkered. Child Labor, no support for working immigrants, family sickness, work place injuries and death, were a way of life for a long time. But in the 1920s the Labor Movement caused major changes in the law and in the operation of American Business. Unions grew to great power, and sat as equals in the Boardrooms of American Business. That is not the case at the moment, but changes occur and there is always an ebb and flow in American society that seems to settle things reasonably well over time. 

Is the process perfect? Absolutely not. But it works reasonably well. Now, however, we come to the current political scene. It is not pretty, and it is not beneficial to us as a Nation. 

We are moving forward to another national election. Occurring every two years, it keeps the policy makers and eager political players chomping at the bit. So, what is wrong? First and foremost, I think that the politicians, of both parties, more so than usual, are spouting their solutions, which are primarily attempting to draw voters for them. There are simplistic solutions presented by all sides from the ultra-liberal wings of the Democratic Party to the arch-conservative Republican Tea Party members. The use of modern technology to attempt to communicate with the American voting public is continuing to be in evidence, and it needs to be used. In the 1790s the knowledge of what was espoused by the local politicians was limited to a single newspaper, and that had a reading public radius of perhaps twenty miles. The family across the mountains, but still in the state, had no idea what was proposed by eager senatorial or congressional candidates. But in today’s world, we do. 

What is being proposed? Simplistic, easy solutions with potentially grave consequences. I am obliged to quote H. L. Mencken at this point: “There is always an easy solution to every problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”

The economy of the United States must come under control. Any logical analysis of the problem will note that we must restrain our spending, and increase our income. The spending restraints must be in areas which will not unduly affect the quality of life in this country; the increase in income must come from those large areas which have sufficient funds to help the country. For example, it is clear that entitlements must be considered, reviewed, and controlled, because they are a major expense. So are the programs of the Department of Defense. Can major cuts be made in each of these two example areas? Of course. The amount we spend on Foreign Aid is minuscule compared to other expenses. Looking for substantial savings in Foreign Aid is simply not going to work. Where could we increase our income? Increase taxation among the population. Who should be taxed the most? The most wealthy, of course. Will this solve the problem? No, it will not. But it is a step in that direction. Giant corporations (think oil companies) should be taxed to pay their fair share for living and operating in the United States. 

There is a process in mathematics which requires that first order effects be balanced by first order effects. No matter how you try, second order effects can not balance first order effects. 

Do I have detailed suggestions? I do not. I am not an economist, nor a politician. I do know that I, as a voter in all elections, local and national, will support politicians of any stripe who will take logically defensible positions to help the United States economy and the job situation in this country—now! All who suggest nonsense solutions can, as far as I am concerned, go down to defeat and good riddance. In fact, I am even willing to support the campaigns of courageous politicians with good ideas who actually, regardless of the  risks to their political careers, work to implement actions which actually address our real, not imaginary, problems. There are probably many other citizens like me. 

I will have more to say about how small changes in our political structure might help us bring things under control. But that is for another day. 

What am I talking about? Isn’t this a little, well, far-fetched? Too specialized? Too erudite? I don’t think so. Read a little further and then decide whether this makes sense, or not.

Warfare has been used for millennia to impose one nations’ wishes on its neighbors. I contend that warfare had not changed substantially for the past several thousand years until the last quarter of the 20^th century. The concept of warfare (read Sun Tzu, The Art of War for a clear understanding of the underlying principals of warfare. It was written in roughly 500 BC and remains in use today. Its principals are unchanging; its tools for implementation are radically different than even 30 years ago).

During the time from when we came down from the trees and stood on two legs until roughly the end of the 20^th century, war was fought between roughly equal forces. Big armies were faced by other big armies. In effect, sides were of roughly equal strength. They fought with each other using similar tactics. These were decided by the strategy as set down by their rulers and military leaders; then geography, trade, manpower, and a myriad of other issues and special circumstances dictated how the warring factions would tactically deal with one another. Both sides basically used the same weapons and the same general approach in the struggle. This could be called Symmetric Warfare. (Roughly equal opponents using roughly equal equipment, in the same way, to achieve similar goals).

The most recent struggle where roughly equal forces faced one another was World War II. Giant armies, and all which that implied, faced and fought each other on roughly equal terms. But during this world wide struggle science and technology was used to an unprecedented degree. Post WWII saw a dramatic change.

Nuclear weapons were developed. The Soviet Union, led by Russia, followed in the steps of the United States. While there was a tremendous amount of saber-rattling, it was clear to the leaders of both sides that mankind had finally developed a series of weapons which could destroy the human species. This was something that had never occurred in the history of warfare. Sure, you could kill many people (for example the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese forces in China in 1937), was truly a terrible event. But in the city of Shanghai, only 200 miles away there was no effect. But in nuclear war everybody was in danger. This evolved the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In simple terms, the two power blocks said “If you destroy me I will destroy you,” And thoughtful leaders on both sides knew they could posture and threaten, but they all knew and understood that there was a line which could not be crossed. Seeing your country lose a war was one thing; wiping out humanity and all living things on the planet was a different kettle of fish.

Then science and technology went farther. Weapons became more precise. Much more precise. In WWII there was a concept of “carpet bombing” to attack cities. Why? Because we couldn’t be sure that any one bomb would destroy a particular target. So, we dropped lots of them. Some times that worked, and sometimes it didn’t. Today, we can send ONE controllable missile from over 1000 miles away to hit a precise spot. I mean it can hit the second floor of a building, third window from the left. And, these weapons are cheap! Less than a million dollars. And, they can have nuclear warheads, among others.

The implications are that no group of leaders can ever gather simultaneously at one spot. If the opposing sides’ intelligence is good (and it generally is) the leadership of the other side can be destroyed with one attack. The entire concept of warfare has changed.

So, what does this asymmetric warfare have to do with anything? No country can possibly challenge the United States with equivalent, similar military force. But they can attack us with little bombs to blow up trucks. They kill a few soldiers at a time. They have no major armies, and no integrated leadership. They just kill a few people using suicide bombers. And to what end? They want to run things their own way, with no interference from the US. One side, the US, has a mind-boggling arsenal which faces tiny forces with a few homemade bombs. And we, the US, can’t stop them. This is the concept of asymmetric warfare. (Drastically unequal opponents using completely different equipment, in wildly different ways, trying to achieve dramatically dissimilar goals).

So what? The implications are substantial. We are supporting a giant military force which has no similar opponent. We can reduce our military by substantial amounts of men and material, which currently costs an enormous amount to support. And worse, some of our current force uses tactics based upon technology which is many generations out of date. This is not a good idea.

We have to have a force which can be expanded if and when large countries decide to oppose us, militarily. But the development of highly precise and specific weapons make that scenario highly unlikely. The United States should reduce its military force by tremendous amounts (say 50%) and train highly mobile, small specialized forces which would operate against terrorists in a manner similar to the way the terrorists operate.

In addition, American Foreign Policy should be altered. We should “Speak softly and carry a Big Stick,” giving encouragement and modest support to the people of oppressed nations whose populations want to achieve a more democratic way of life. Recent events in Egypt spring to mind, where the revolution came about heavily supported and aided by the use of modern technology communications. There seems to be a message here.

In essence, modern technology has transformed the way all present and future warfare must be waged. The concepts of huge static armies, requiring enormous logistic support, that are not capable of being protected, are faulty. Therefore, they must be disbanded, and entirely different forces must be developed using the tools of modern technology, today. This use of modern technology is in keeping with emotional, public, physical support to the oppressed populations, world wide, whose day is coming, and in fact is here, today. It would be a good idea for the United States to align itself with the future, which is here now, rather than the past which can no longer be supported or maintained.  

American Foreign Policy has been a little unsure of itself recently. And by recently I mean for the past several decades. We seem to have taken a posture that is focused on short term results rather than long term goals. The recent revolutions which started in Tunisia, and then spread to Egypt is a wonderful opportunity for us to review our posture with respect to the rest of the world.

This comment is really precipitated by my listening to the discussions of the talking heads which are become more and more irritating (all TV channels, all the time). There are a few thoughtful commentators (David Gergen, Mark Shields, and David Brooks). In general, the commentators have been saying that the Arab leaders, and other heads of government throughout the world, are seriously disturbed about our willingness to abandon Hosni Mubarak, former President of Egypt, who was our ally for the past thirty years. Then they raise the specter of whether the State Department knows what it is doing, etc. Our policy was too slow in Egypt….no, perhaps they said it was too fast. The United States acted with too much strength…no, perhaps its actions were too weak. Hmmm. I don’t remember any more. Their comments are simply Nonsense. Balderdash.

This is the time for the United States to use its knowledge of history and formulate a policy which recognizes and understands that we have a unique position in this world. We are strong, and should use that strength in a way that causes hesitation in the postures of world leaders toward their own populations. I am not advocating that we make any attempt to insert ourselves into the internal affairs of any country. I am suggesting that all we have to do is to point out that their internal policies may have consequences for them in dealing with the United States. What is that you say? I am threatening? No, I am not. I think that a more appropriate historical phrase (attributed to African or Native American sources) might be “Speak softly but carry a Big Stick.” This phrase was used in slightly different form by Teddy Roosevelt.

The bedrock of the United States internal affairs is the concept of democracy and representative government. Each American has the opportunity to attempt to make a life for themselves using their skills, forbearance, and efforts. This is a good thing, and it seems, desired by young people all over the world. Is there a hint of a message here?

Unfortunately the day-to-day needs for interactions with the world’s governments sometimes requires doing business with harsh repressive regimes. Egypt, Iran and North Korea spring immediately to mind. There are others. The United States cannot take a posture that refuses to deal with these countries. We must deal with them for a myriad of reasons: military, economic, health, environment, etc. So we should deal with them, just as we should have and did deal with Egypt for the past thirty years.

In focusing on our relationship with Mubarak and Egypt we should have supported him to keep peace, it at all possible, in the Middle East. But it should have been clear to him and the rest of the Egyptian leaders that our relationship with them was a marriage of convenience. Fundamentally, we would always support the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the Egyptian people in creating a democratic, representative government and society. If the leaders did not like or appreciate our stance, or our candor (presented privately and perhaps publicly) for that matter, we could shrug our shoulders (metaphorically, and perhaps literally) and say, “Ok. Then no more aid. No more support. Nothing. No favored nation status. You are on your own.” Every single despot throughout the world who rules their populations with an iron hand would pause and reflect upon the possible implications of such a posture by the United States.

In my view of the present and the possible future I again turn to my base: technology. Why were the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and the soon coming future revolutions in all dictatorial regimes, political and religious) successful? Communications. The Internet. The Cell Phone. Young Egyptians (70% are under thirty years of age) saw no future for themselves. And they found out that peoples in other parts of the world could have different lives. Why not Egyptian citizens?

The Egyptian government made an attempt to suppress communications. They failed. Of course for those who use servers and wire connections, those could be stopped. But satellites? Nope. Wireless communications allowed a continuing flow of information to the Egyptian people (the young people who understand and use communications in daily operations of all kinds) so they knew that they had the world supporting them. Fifty years ago all communications could have been stifled. Not today.

The leaders of countries all over the world (repressive and not) are old. They think of technology as a marvel. They don’t understand that technology and technology communications have made the techniques of controlling their populations, as it was done for the past three millennia, unstable and collapsing. Censorship at all levels is, today and even more tomorrow, impossible to implement. Censorship implies control, and that is fast disappearing. Leaders will have to have general support from their populations. A new world is not just approaching; it is here.

While my comments are focused on political regimes, I think this logic is also applicable to all religious-based regimes as well. Iran revolted a few years ago, and it failed. But does that mean that it won’t happen, again? Hmmm.

The United States Foreign Policy should be to deal with repressive regimes as required. But, they should never support them for short term political advantage. The unstoppable, overwhelming sea change is underway, and the people of the world, Northern and Southern hemispheres, will look to us, the United States, for support in having a better life, more opportunity to prosper, and support in achieving that goal.  

A young man took his legally obtained pistol, appropriate ammunition, and walked to a meeting arranged by the local Congressman to discuss issues with her constituents at a local supermarket. He calmly walked up to the local Congressman and shot her in the head. He then proceeded to shoot and kill six additional people and would wound an additional fourteen. He was tackled and wrestled to the ground by several local citizens. The entire event was over in a matter of moments. But the effects on the entire country will be felt for a long time; the effects on the families of the people who were killed and wounded will be for a lifetime.

The outpouring of national grief was enormous. Solemn events were held, with a meeting at the University of Arizona, Tucson Campus, presided over by the President of the University, and with invited speakers: The President of the United States, The Attorney General of the United States, The Secretary of Homeland Security, with two Supreme Court Justices (one active and one retired) attending, along with 26,000 other people.

The general tone of the meeting was unusual. While this was to be in support of the healing process, and appropriately somber, that was not quite the case. There were quiet, reflective, and somber moments. There were also cheers and yells from the many University students. And, all this was perfectly appropriate. The meeting was held in a Field House, and not a cathedral or chapel. In one sense it was a celebration of life and determination that the United States would live, and it honored those people, heroes all, who apprehended the assassin and helped all the fallen to the extent that they could. In another sense it was a solemn ceremony that was appropriately respectful to the wounded and in memory of the dead.

The word “heroes” was used frequently. What are heroes? I think that heroes are people who act out of conviction that they should be doing something to help others regardless of potential consequences to their own safety. In fact, it is my guess that none of the people who were truly heroes at that killing ground in front of the local Tucson Safeway even thought about their own safety. They acted instinctively to do what was part of their moral approach to life.

The speakers were all good. The President gave a magnificent speech, with just the right tone for praising the community for its actions, and trying to help a grieving nation, as well as calling for us to be more civil to one another. This is an important point. He did not suggest that we should all think alike and agree with him on politics, government, or any other subject. No, what he said was that we, as Americans, can and must be civil to each other in our disagreements, even passionate support of our beliefs, but it is necessary for us as a nation collectively and individually to allow free speech without rancor or belief that because the person next to you doesn’t agree with you, does not mean that he is your enemy.

There have been lots of words from many sources in the recent past since these events occurred. Some are wise, and some are not. But only one person made an observation that, for me, summed up the entire process.

The people who were involved in the event: the dead, the wounded, the living, the heroes, et al, were all different with different backgrounds. The Federal Court Judge was a Roman Catholic, and his fellow citizens who tried to help each other and overwhelm the assassin were Protestants, and Jews. The young man man who saved the life of the Congressman was of Latino origins. The triage surgeon is a former military medic of Korean stock. The person who gave the benediction at the meeting was a fifth generation Latino and also has roots from an Indian heritage. And, they were all led by the first Black President of the United States. Perhaps there should be some inferences drawn from this rather amazing and varied fabric that all of them were there to try to help heal the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens. Something to ponder.

About a month ago I submitted a comment that simply bubbled up from the depths of my soul. I prefaced my remarks with the observation that I made every effort to write about reasonable subjects but this was something which I simply could not ignore. This comment is in the same vein. 

My previous comment introduced the term Low Grade Morons (LGMs). The term describes people who are substantially, measurably dumber than just Morons. This group of LGMs surfaced and came to my attention through being concerned about Full Body Scans at airports. I noted that their posture was a clear certification that those people were morons. Because of their stance on that particular subject they were entitled to being within the top 10% of all members on the Low Grade Morons list. 

I had thought that that would be my last comment on LGMs. I was wrong. I have found another group, in fact an entire family, who may possibly surpass the first group. I know that there are some readers who will shake their head about this remark; but I politely request that you listen to the story before you denigrate my observation. 

There is town in Washington DC Metropolitan area called Potomac Maryland. It is filled with beautiful homes, and very successful people. The education levels of the members of this community is very high; but this family slipped through the cracks in the fence, so to speak. 

Several days ago they burnt their entire house to the ground. Luckily enough there was no harm to the family. The four family members escaped without any difficulty. Repairs to the house are estimated to be about $1 million. Even in the days of expensive houses this is a goodly sum. How did this occur? 

The family put up their live Christmas Tree (an old and pleasant tradition) and then placed candles on the tree and, in emotion of the season, lit them all. They looked beautiful, it was stated. However, the candles put the tree on fire, which then quickly spread to the rest of the house, burning it to the ground. 

I am not opposed to holidays. I am not opposed to family emotional connections. I am not opposed to celebrations which are based upon ancient rituals. But, some thought should be reserved for potential difficulties and harm. 

Live Christmas trees must be watered so they do not dry out. Trees burn. (Think forest fires). Parts of trees burn (think fireplaces and logs). Why were electric Christmas lights for trees invented? Was it just for increased use of electricity? No, actually the problem of Christmas Trees bursting into flame from candles attached to the trees in the last several centuries was real, serious, and endemic. People lost their trees, their homes, and frequently their lives. This historical fact apparently never occurred to the family in Potomac. 

I suggest that this family, and in particularly the adults of the family, stand with clear evidentiary results as senior superior members of the Low Grade Morons. 

Let me know if you have any stories that beat this. I can hardly wait. I can’t imagine them. 

New York is an exciting town. You are there at the most exciting time of the year. The people are all rushing around and getting ready for the Christmas Holidays. All the stores are busy and some have very interesting and delightful window displays. 

I will look forward to your observations and comments about NY in the future. 

Stay warm. 

Google wanted to celebrate its 10th year in advertising. They prepared a video that thanks their subscribers. I am one of those subscribers. 

The web site: http://www.youtube.com/adwords10?x=1ace85da20534333a99d7ad9310e4d6d