Saturday, February 25, 2017
Well this is an improvement.
When I was still a gleam in my daddy's eye, Germany fought a world-sized war against France. But now, in 2017, all the obsolete ideology that then fueled both fanaticisms--fascist v. communist--has withered down into a battle of ideas.
Fiscal ideas, like whether budgets should be balanced, or put on hold until things get better.
From a Peace vs. War standpoint, I'd say that delicate balancing act is an improvement, wouldn't you? Budgets and Economic Plans are, theoretically, much more manageable than tanked-up military campaigns.
Now Germany and France-- those two nation-state heavyweights whose fiscal priorities set the course for the rest of Europe--they are getting along just fine now. They expend financial energies trying to keep the whole of Europe humming along on all cylinders. Budget deficits that drag down Euro economies are generated mostly in the lackadaisical southern economies--Greece, Italy and Spain.
But those two mid-continent economic heavyweights--France and Germany, function as fiscal opposites, polarizing European values and budget priorities in opposite directions. They are two very different countries; and yet Germany and France are not as opposite as they used to be. A lot has changed since they finally made peace back in 1945.
At the time of that last Great War, early 1940's, Germany was suffering through the death-throes of a dying monarchy. What was left of the Kaiser's authoritative legacy had been lethally manipulated into a world-class death regime by a demonic tyrant who wore an odd, obnoxious little mustache on his flat German face.
France up to that time was still stumbling through a sort of awkwardly adolescent stage, having booted their kings and queens out back in the early stages of the industrial revolution, and then replacing, in stages, the ancient monarchy with a struggling new Republic.
What the French did as the 18th-century came to a close was similar to what we Americans did, but different. We had ditched King George III in 1776. The French cut off Louis XVI in 1792. On the other side of the Rhine, the Germans kept their Wilhelm top dog hanging on a thread until the Allies ran him down in 1918.
We Americans did a whole new thing after we rejected the old wineskins of monarchic government back in 1776; we had a lot going for us--a vast, nearly-virgin continent that stretched out for 3000+ miles, with plenty of room to grow, and to expand our new-found explorations for Life, Liberty and Pursuits of Happiness.
The Europeans--neither the French nor the Germans--did not have all that fruited-plains expansion space like we had. They were cramped up over there in the Old World.
Having wielded a fierce guillotine ruthlessness upon their king and queen, the French tried to spread the wealth all around, ensuring that everybody got a chunk of it. They had wrung a blood-stained liberte from the palaces of privilege in 1789. Over the course of the next century and a half, they generally moved leftward the whole time, toward an egalitarian idea of solidarity.
The Germans have always tended toward authoritarian leadership, which is one reason why Hitler was able to pull off the abominations that he did. But we Allies put that to an end in 1945.
Now in the post-WWII Europe, the Germans have turned out to be pretty good kids on the block, considering all that had happened back in the day. The last 3/4 of a century has seen a remarkable recovery. They went through some serious changes, rebuilding after losing two wars, and then being divide into two different countries.
Since 1990, when Germany became united again into one country, those krauts have established a pretty impressive record. They now have the strongest, most stable economy in Europe. One reason it turned out this way is: the Germans have historically been, by necessity, very disciplined, rational people and they know how to get things done.
The French are different from that. You gotta love the French. As the Germans have made the world a better place with their great music (Bach and Beethoven), the French have brightened and lightened our worldly life with their very lively, expressive and impressionistic art, coupled with their unbridled Joie de vivre. And let's not forget the original architectural piece-de-resistance of the Western World. It was French creativity married to inventive 19th-century industrialism that brought us the Eiffel Tower in 1889.
The French do progress with style and artistry; the Germans get it done with impressive efficiency and precision.
As an American who has geneologic roots in both cultures, this fascinates me.
Their two different attitudes about generating prosperity also encompass, respectively, their approaches to solving money problems.
Or more specifically. . . solving "lack of money" problems.
A new book, Europe and the Battle of Ideas, explains how these two nations, as the two polarizing States of modern Europe, each lead in their own way to set policy, together, for solving Europe's financial problems. Their tandem leadership is enhanced by their two very different strategies.
The simplest way to describe their treatments of European deficits is this:
The Germans are into Austerity; the French are into Stimulus.
Or to put it into a classic perspective:
The Germans want to balance the books, thereby squeezing all governments and banks into economic stability. The French want the assets to get spread around so everybody can have a chunk of it.
How do I know anything about this?
This morning I saw Markus Brunnermeier being interviewed; he is one of the authors of the new book, Europe and the Battle of Ideas.
In this fascinating, very informative interview, the questions are being posed by Rob Johnson, President of Institute for New Thinking, whatever that is.
Together, these two guys explore the two basic problem-solving approaches to working out Europe's economic deficiencies. And it just so happens that the two main strategies are related to those two old nationalized culture, described above, between Germany and France.
Sounds simplistic perhaps, but this comparative analysis makes a lot of sense when you hear these two knowledgable men talk about the present condition of economic Europe.
So, rather than try to explain it to you, I'll simply leave you with this list of characteristics, as identified by. Mr Markus Brunnermeier. The list identifies how each country's budgetary priorities contributes to a strategy for solving Europe's fiscal woes. My oversimplified version of it looks like this:
Consider these two lists of national characteristics as two different strategies for solving large-scale economic problems.
Here are a few notes I made while watching Mr. Johnson interview Mr. Brunnermeir:
For French, the problem is always liquidity. Stimulus will flush money out of markets again.
Germans see problems as solvency difficulty. Fix the fundamentals. Don't throw good money after bad.
French: If you see it as a liquidity problem, just bail them out.
German: If you see it as solvency problem, Bail in, to avoid future hazards. Bail-in means: Bond holders who essentially gambled with a country or bank and then reap the gains on upside-- they should take losses on downside.
There was a radical shift in attitudes in Europe over the Cyprus bank crisis in spring 2013. Who pays? Who covers the losses?
. . . Bail-in or bail-out?
French fear systemic risk so they tend toward governmental bail-outs.
The Germans, on the other hand, see crisis as an opportunity to address and solve the systemic deficiencies. So penalize the depositors/ investors; others will learn from that, and you will have bank-runs in other places. Such circumstances provide incentives for institutions and individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and investments.
Just how the Europeans get all this worked out, we shall see in the days ahead. And the working-out may provide some lessons for all of us.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Then life came and went.
Nowadays, I find myself content to merely listen while life slips by.
In ages past, a maestro such as Felix Mendelssohn could imagine something incredible; he could then summon up in his own mind and hands-- an exquisite composition, an intricate stream of vibrations--as sublime as any that could ever be coaxed from a mere box constructed of wood and wire. He could then write the composition. Then, 170 years later Hilary could set bow to instrument and, with help from the orchestra, make it all happen so perfectly.
There's a reason why my fiddle has been set aside all these years. Why bother? There's somebody who can do it better. There's somebody out there who can, in fact, do it perfectly.
Just listen. But I get to thinking. . .
Years go by. We pay attention, try to figure things out. There's always somebody out there who can do things better than we can. Leave the complicated stuff to experts. And listen. Listen and learn. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two.
Just daydreaming now; I think of Sally Field in Forrest Gump when she was playing his mother and she said life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get.
Think about 2008. Everybody just lollygaggin' along. . .then whoosh! well, you remember what happened. Everybody's shell-shocked. Uncle Hank stammering on the Tube. They had to twist Congress' arm two or three times before they'd come up with the money to fix the mess, at least temporarily.
Then the experts get trotted out to analyze, to testify, to figure what the hell happened in stock markets that made the thing come crashin' down--something about market manipulations of MBS's, unforeseen incredibilities of CDO's, the incredulous defaulting of credit default swaps blah blah blah
As the thing unwinds, along come the explanations, the excuses, the wagging fingers, the committees, the commissions, the oversight agencies get rolled out, cranked up. Republicans in shock because Obama's in. Democrats trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. Democrats got to fix everything, so what do they do. . .
Let's fix everything up, they say.
Ok. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
Years go by. Big shock when Trump comes blasting' into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave after those 8 years of Mr. Smooth.
Now this morning we hear Amy and Juan on the radio, and here's Senator Liz whining about how the new Republican whirlwind wants to wind down Dodd-Frank, which was supposed to be the big fix, the big Democratic fix. I mean, she's a little bit crazy, like all Democrats, but there's one thing about Liz, she can play the rhetoric like Hilary plays the violin. It's no wonder Mitch had to cut her off last week. Anyway, Liz is saying:
"Commercial and consumer lending is robust. Bank profits are at record levels. And our banks are blowing away their global competitors. So, why go after banking regulations? The president and the team of Goldman Sachs bankers that he has put in charge of the economy want to scrap the rules so they can go back to the good old days, when bankers could take huge risks and get huge bonuses if they got lucky, knowing that they could get taxpayer bailouts if their bets didn’t pay off. We did this kind of regulation before, and it resulted in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We cannot afford to go down this road again."
I mean, Liz might have a point there. If things are so ROBUST, why do we still get this feeling about the 20,000+ Dow? Is it deja vu, or deja due, or prescience, maybe too much twitter or not enough facebook, or a rerun of common sense or what? Maybe it's all just a bunch of hot air blowin' around and we keep wonderin' about the whole house of cards but we can't really put our finger on what's wrong cuz you know the answer my friend is blowin' in the wind and life is like a box of chocolates anyway, a mere lala land where we think we got it figured out but really we don't.
Although I do have to remind you, Liz, since I am a registered Republican: we can't fix everything. If we could, and if we did, why, how boring would that be?
So my advice to you is we'd best leave the fiddlin' to the experts. Sooner or later we'll all have to face the music anyway.
Monday, February 20, 2017
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .
The world has changed a lot since those words were adopted as the philosophical basis of a new experiment in civil government. Here are just a few of the ways our world has changed since those revolutionary days:
~ Our fledgling national legislature, known at that time as the "Continental" Congress, is now called the Congress of the United States.
~ We Americans now associate the world "Continental" with Europe.
~ On the "Continent" of Europe, citizen-groups are now struggling to form a workable political basis for a European Union.
~~ Whereas, In the year 1776, when our American Continental Congress adopted a plan for a United States of America, we had a nominal consensus for the basis of our Union; and That consensus was based, rhetorically, upon "certain unalienable Rights, . . . Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; which Rights that had been "endowed" by a "Creator,"
~~ In the year 2000, the European Parliament adopted a Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union, by which the peoples of Europe are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. . . indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. . . based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
We see, therefore, that the American Union was initiated during an historical period in which faith in a Creator God was still, at least rhetorically, allowed to be a basis for political consensus.
The European Union, however, is coalescing in a post-modern, humanistic age in which their unity can only be expressed in terms of human agreements and motivations, stated above as common values.
As we Americans ultimately divided ourselves into two primary political identities, Democrats and Republicans, with one side being generally associated with progressivism programs while the other is based in conservatism,
We notice that in Europe, in what is now a churning crucible of 21st-century economic constraints, the divisions seem to be congealing toward two uniquely Euro polarities. On the Right side, we find the Austerians, whose values are based on fiscal responsibility and the austerity that is thought to be necessary for maintaining economic and political stability. On the Left side, we find the Socialists, whose values are based on equality that is assured and managed by the State, which should produce solidarity among the people.
As Thomas Jefferson had proposed a declaration based ostensibly on the zeitgeist of the so-called Age of Enlightenment, so has a spokesman stepped forth, in our age, to propose for the Europeans a document that aspires to manifest the zeitgeist of this (perhaps) Age of Equality.
Toward that end, Mr. Yanis Varoufakis, former Finance Minister of the Greek Syriza party, has proposed a five-point plan by which the Europeans would collectively assure the rights of persons as they are understood in this, the 21st-century.
Stated simplistically, those rights are:
~ a collective investment in green/sustainable technology
~ an employment guarantee for every citizen
~ an anti-poverty fund
~ a universal basic dividend (income)
~ an immediate anti-eviction protection.
So we see, now, that in the 200+ years since the inception of American Democratic-Republicanism, the zeitgeist that was then seen as inevitable has changed. In the so-called Age of Enlightenment (c.1776) we were demanding a Government that would Protect our Unalienable Rights, defined broadly as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
The modern zeitgeist, however, as it appears to be evolving in the Europe of Our Age, is demanding: a Government to Protect our Basic Life Necessities.
Instead of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, citizens of the World now appear to be demanding Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Equality.
And that's the way it is, 2017. We shall see how this develops as the 21st-century unfolds.
Friday, February 17, 2017
So did you hear the one about the Over the Top President?
No. Don't think so.
Guy walks into a starbucks . . .
and he says to the barista, "Why do they call the the Donald the 'over the top' Prez?"
So the barista says, Ya got me. Why do they call him that?
Cuz he's over the top of everything! Haha! You get it?
Uh, I'm not sure. . .
All the so-called chaos that's going on--he's right on top of it! You get it?
Uh. . . you mean he's in charge of it?
Yeah, not to worry, he's got it under control! It's just gonna take a while for media people to come around to his take-charge leadership style-- he's actually got it all under his thumb. My cousin Molly says he's just got a higher tolerance for chaos than most people do, and he feels that it's, on some level, productive.
Well, that's comforting.
Yeah! oh yeah. And my other cousin, Gregor, says the Prez may be living in his own world, but millions are right there with him, living right beside him.
Maybe so, Greg, but . . . he seems a little paranoid, like he takes everything personal, even belligerent at times. . . you think he's stable?
Oh yeah. As a matter of fact, I think he owns a bunch of 'em. I think he's got some high-quality stables somewhere out there in the hinterlands. . .
Like in flyover country?
Yeah, like I said, he's over the top.
Well that's good to know.
Oh yeah, and he's got some good people, right on top of the situation, like a good hound on point. You can relax and feel better about it. So you feel better about him now?
I guess so, as long as all the so-called judges and the so-called reporters and all the other so-called Americans can get used to the way he does things.
Oh yeah. The Prez has got it covered. You can take that to the bank. I mean . . . look around, the stock market agrees, it's all good, not to worry.
Oh yeah? Sounds like a bunch of bull to me.
No way. Relax. The Prez has got it covered.
Really? Got it covered?
Oh yeah, not to worry. Eventually he'll get all the leaks stopped; he'll get 'em covered, and his people will be running our .gov along like a fine-tuned machine.
I thought machine politics went out with the Democrats.
It did. Well, yeah, their machine went out because we won the election. You realize, of course, we won the election? You did get the news, right? in spite of all the fake news. . .
. . . and the machine will be fine-tuned, like a fine-tuned machine is what he said. Why can't the Dhemmis and the Media get that through their heads? They need to get with the program.
Excuse me, I just think we are in a struggle for the soul of our democracy here. At least, that's what my cousin Elijah said.
No way, Hosay! Oh, here's my Uncle Tom here. What do you think, Tom? Is that over top?
I don't know. Let's ask Steve. Steve, is that over the top?
Oh, no. It's not over the top at all . . . when you consider his behavior at the press conference, and . . . all the things that are not working, the things that are signs that the administration has not even found its footing yet in Washington. People should be very very concerned about what's coming next and whether the administration will ever be able to actually govern, which we haven't seen it do yet. I don't think there's anything that's over the top in terms of what the response would be to this kind of signaling from the chief executive of the United States . . .it's all really mind-boggling. . . none of us I think has ever seen anything like this . . .
Hey, hey, hey, Steve, relax, man! Take a chill pill. Like candy, man. The candy man can. This ain't no ratpack; this ain't no disco, ain't no jive He's right on top of it. Not to worry, man. You need to lighten up, man. What you need is a little humor to leaven this heavy-duty trip that the so-called Press is trying to put on you. Let me help you, man. Did you hear the one about the Over the Top Prez?
Uh, no. Don't think so.
Guy walks into a starbucks and he says to the barista . . .
Thursday, February 16, 2017
President Trump went to our Capital city with an intention to drain the swamp.
Good luck with that. However, if I'm not mistaken, the swamp in that Chesapeake area was drained at about the time President Washington took office, over 200 years ago, and Congress decided to build us a Capital in that environs.
Now two weeks into the Trump administration we already see some rearrangement of the chairs from which our multi-layered executive branch of governance will administrate.
With Gen. Michael Flynn's resignation as National Security Advisor, all the media talking heads were abuzz yesterday with speculation about what this early switcheroo means for the future of our security and national defense. Trump's shoot-from-the-hip leadership style seems to impose on his nascent administration a wild wild west kind of drama upon which the media talking heads thrive.
In order to gain some comprehension of what is happening on that national security front, I, citizen, was listening on my radio yesterday to Tom Ashbrook's NPR talk-show On Point.
Host Tom's introduction of his 2/15/2017 guests included a few words about William Burns, who is President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
That mention of the Carnegie Endowment triggered a 2015 memory in which I had been walking along Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, DC. On that summer day, I had snapped this pic:
I suppose I had thought to take this picture because the legacy of Andrew Carnegie in our national development has, for a long time, fascinated me. His work as an immigrant industrialist turned out to be a fulcrum in our exceptional westward continental expansion. Carnegie's role, in later life, as a generous philanthropist is legendary.
So Ambassador William Burns' role as President of that Carnegie foundation for peace got my attention. Furthermore, I found Mr. Burns' comments to be informative and well-delivered.
I daresay it was the voice of experience glinting through in his cogent analysis that lent authenticity to Ambassador Burns' observation. William Burns' former role (2005-08) as Russian ambassador certainly lent to his perspective a readily identifiable authenticity on the currently hot topic of Russian influence in our internal affairs. It seemed to me his perspective is not that of your run-of-the-mill inside-the-beltway pontificator, but rather, a truly informed opinion.
Our former Ambassador to the Russian Federation said,
"New administrations typically try to do a couple of things early on. The first is reassure your allies and partners, and the second is to sober your adversaries. What we've seen in less than a month is almost the opposite of that, creating a fair amount of unease among allies and unnerving partners, while at the same time giving adversaries and potential adversaries the sense that there are opportunities out there."
After hearing this, and listening to yesterday's On Point discussion, I visited the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace website. I read there an Op-ed letter written by William Burns that the New York Times had published on Jan. 7.
In the letter, he describes Vladimir Putin as a leader who is playing rough.
He observes that Putin has sought a deferential government in Kiev while grabbing Crimea and trying to provoke a dysfunctional Ukraine.
Vladimir is flexing Russia's military muscle in Syria to preserve Assad's brutal government, thus emasculating the West by making us appear conciliatory. The Assad/Russian brutality forces many war-displaced Syrians to flee toward Europe and the West. Putin's Assad-boosting military adventure thus spawns the infamous emigration that destabilizes those countries to which the Syrian refugees flee. Putin exploits this ongoing destabilization by striving to replace, by strong-arm intimidation, European instability with Russian power.
This scenario becomes evidence of our need to maintain our "absolute commitment to NATO." William Burns writes, "Our network of allies is not a millstone around America's neck, but a powerful asset that sets us apart."
I agree with this statement. American alliances based on shared values and principles that cultivate liberty do set us apart from the bullies of the world--the historical ones such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez etc, but also those dictators who may be lurking in the world today, waiting for an opportunity to pounce on weakened nation-states.
Ambassador Burns served in Moscow as our Ambassador during 2005-2008. He expresses respect for the Russian people and their contributions to Western civilization. But he warns that Putin's aggressive tactics must be countered with American firmness and vigilance. We Americans should remain confident in our enduring strengths, and unapologetic about our values.
Our values call for, I remind you, government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Not power plays by bullies.
Friday, February 10, 2017
We placed this bird-feeder outside our kitchen window. We bought it from Lowe's, where I work a few hours every week, since I'm an old guy now.
This bird-feeder has been a real hoot. There's nothing in the world like watching birds, at close range, while they do their thing, whatever it is that birds are doing. I mean, it's hard to figure out what they're up to. Their ways are higher than ours.
Personally, I think they're a higher life form than we are.
Although yesterday, I had to wonder about them because of some of the petty bickering they got into that later came to my attention.
One of these birds was talking trash to the other, and so they got into a dispute about who was to have the corner spot on the White House. (We call it the White House).
The corner spot, like the corner office, is the hallowed position on the pecking order because it's easier there to pluck the seeds and kernels from the White House trough.
I thought these two combatants were arguing about the corner spot. But later, I found out otherwise. Shortly after the altercation occurred, I was visited by my informant, who shall remain nameless, except that I shall heretofore refer to him/her as deep Beak, so you'll know the aviant of whom I speak.
When deep Beak subsequently made his/her clandestine visit to me, I was, at that time yesterday afternoon, able to gather non-fake news (that is, the real scoop) about the real issue that provoked the confrontation you see photoshipped here. Deep Beak disclosed this information to me in a discreet manner to protect his/her own anonymity. As you can surmise here, deep Beak's face cannot be seen. I insist on preserving the anonymity of my source.
My source revealed that the two birdbrains pictured earlier were not arguing about the corner spot at the White House. In sooth, they were having a political discussion.
The cold, hard truth about these litigants is: they were arguing about Rule 19 of the US Senate. That's the arcane legislative rule that enabled the Republicans to do their very subtle, though obviously potent, power play on the senator from Mass so that the said senator could not retrieve from history some information about Jeff Sessions who was up for nomination as Trump's Attorney General.
Oh, and did I mention that deep Beak intimated to me that one of these combatants you see here is a Democrat and the other is Republican?
Pshaw! I'll bet that explains a lot, huh!
It's becoming more and more obvious to me that these birdbrains are too polarized to be thinking clearly. They are, forsooth, just playing politics. These two have been politicized beyond rationality; they are just winging it, making up stuff as they go along just for the sake of preserving their own tribal identity instead of their common heritage as endothermic vertebrate Avifauna.
Anyway, according to deep Beak, Jeff Sessions is a pretty good guy, although he has a checkered past, like all old Southern geezers, including this reporter, when it comes to his attitude and his professional history as a lawyer in Alabama as pertaining to the issue of Civil Rights, back in the day.
I'm talking about the dark days of segregation and Jim Crow before the South was born again unto the liberating effects of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
It has been reported that Senator Sessions, the AG nominee, has changed his tune--has even changed his tweets since the Dark days. He has radically revised his attitude toward blacks and their civil rights since those dark days of Jim Crow southern discriminatory segregatory laws that protected and prolonged the ancient scourge of racism and its deleterious effects.
Just ask Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, if you have any questions about the nominee.
Let's hope Sessions has changed his tune, anyway, since he is now Attorney General of these here United States, which I hope will remain United.
The last time the secession talk got so heated up was when those wild-eyed Democrats of South Carolina declared their independence at Fort Sumter. But now its the Left Coast making the secession noise; we're hoping to keep California in the fold since they make all our blockbustin' movies out there, not to mention most of our fruits and nuts.
Blockbustin' movies is OK, but Union bustin' is not.
All you citizens of the good ole USA out there, keep an eye on your Senators and Representatives. Don't let them screw this thing up. We can't allow this good thing we got going fall apart. We must not permit this US thing fall apart over petty politics. Keep the birdbrains accountable.
And let's hope they confirm Judge Gorsuch.
And you should get a bird-feeder from Lowe's. Get a high on a bird today!
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Recently I discovered this empty shell of walnut.
I saved it, because I wanted you to see it. Looking into its vast crevice provides a poignant glimpse into the world of a squirrel.
Even more significantly, however, it affords us a view into nature itself. Furthemore, this empty nutcase gives us a profound view into life itself, the meaning of it.
Peer into that void and ye shall see the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
When I was a young man, I make some poor choices, some mistakes. At one juncture, when I was about 27 years of age, my life went into a skid. I hit bottom, was in a bad spot, between a nut and a hard place and I was at a loss as to what to do, so I turned to God; Jesus pulled me out of the pit of my own errant ways.
Everything got better after that, although it has certainly been no bed of roses in the 38 years since the Lord of the Universe saved me.
Shortly after that salvation turnaround, I met a loverly girl and married her. By n' by, she presented a son and two daughters to me and since that time we've been in squirrel heaven, insofar as we abide in a woodsy area, happy as a squirrel in sugar maples.
In the first year of our marriage, we did an exodus from the rat race and relocated ourselves to a remote mountain town where we have lived ever since. A big part of that move was our involvement with a group of Christian believers, good people who are saved and sanctified by the blood of the Lamb.
Those were good, productive years, in which we took possession of our promised land--which is to say, our very own lives, instead of life as defined by superfluous externals such as success and keeping up with the Jones' blahblah. Up here in the Blue Ridge we were living as a bunch of young bucks and does, with many fawns coming along as a natural outcome. Many of us had been refugees from the destructive influences of countercultural excesses, having slogged, wounded and bleeding through the minefields of a corruptive world.
We were pretty excited about our quasi-communal churchified project, most of us raising our kids together, training them up together in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It was all good for a sufficient time; then things changed and we eventually went our separate ways, although a few of us still hang together, and that collective friendship is as satisfying now as the old wine that might have been bottled in Napa valley or somewhere during that era.
Our son recently joined with his wife near Napa Valley. Life is grand.
But back in the day, you see, when we were . . . as Don McLean sang, ". . . all in one place, a generation lost in space" (although we were no longer lost because we were all found, in Jesus) . . . back in that day-- a primary reason we were of one mind about such things as God and family was this:
We were all reading from the same script, the Bible.
And this was a good thing, although it had its drawbacks. We were trying to do everything "by the Book" instead of getting bogged down by the religious systems from which we had fled; as time passed, we did have a problem with spiritual pride. Arrogance.
Well, by 'n by, we--long story short--we paid the price for that pride, which is a very real sin issue for folks who think they know a thing or two about God and spirituality.
But in our born-again zeal we had a tendency toward legalistic judgements toward others who did not share our vision. So doctrine became a real sticking point for us, and actually, further along in the big picture, it turned out to be quite a stumbling block.
This is nothing new. It's been going on for thousands of years in the human race. There's always some person or group around who thinks they've got it all figured out better than everybody else.
But it was new to us, being young and wet behind the ears. In some ways. . . although we were living in a woodsy region, we could not see the forest, because of the trees that occluded our immediate vision.
Uncle Remus might have spoken that there is, among all creatures great and small, another minuscule mammal who inhabits our fancified forest: the squirrel.
And somehow or another, back in those old dogmatic days, we maligned that lowly creature's integrity when we used his identity for purposes of identifying what we considered to be bad doctrine.
If we didn't agree with the way a person or group interpreted scripture or even life itself, we'd called them "squirrely."
It was a euphemism, much easier to utter than saying plainly that we judge them to be wrong about something. Because, deep down in ourselves, we knew that we were not right about everything either.
But I'm here to tell ya that we were too hard on the squirrel; heshe is actually blameless, and I appreciate herhis dutiful purpose in the great forest in which we live. HeShe's actually a pretty good little critter, minding herhis own business and feeding their young'uns. And I greatly appreciate hisher Museship for having inspired this here squirrely stash of nutty musings.
No wise-cracks please. We live in a dangerous world. Remember another nutcase from back in our boomer childhood: Nikita Khrushev stood at the UN and said: We will burrow you!
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Out in Berkeley Cal they have a big sculpted ball;
while The Donald building in Chicago is straight and tall.
Notice the Berkeley ball has a chunk out of it,
while The Donald building is a gleaming megalith.
The blown-out ball suggests anarchic demising,
while the skyscraper implies capitalist uprising,
We note here in the devolving USA today
we have two different extremisms now on display,
The Berkeley cadre's unrest has unfurled
as the Donald crowd is getting up in the world,
Some Trumpist whacko named Milo came to speak,
so the lefty radicals in Berkeley had to freak.
In fact the Berkeley riot had gotten so violent
that the talking TV heads could not remain silent.
The Righties said it was instigated by Lefty Professionals,
while Lefties blamed it on Whitey Right Radicals.
Both sides are flinging the fascism word,
to the point that now it's getting absurd.
In reality however the fascist delusion
stalks us through both Leftist and Rightist confusion.
So whether you're grabbing power and wealth,
or radical revolution inflicted by stealth,
the real question's do you plan to kill and maim,
or does your strategy retain the law and order game?
If by the sins of Hitler or Stalin your impose your will,
We the people will oppose you by the rule of law still.
Of dragging us down that murderous path--
don't even think about inflicting your wrath.
Whether you're destroying by hook or by crook
we will defeat it by throwing at you the book.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
first there were four; then there were two.
The deer in the snow made a beautiful scene;
compared to the world, they're much more serene.
Today came differently, in a fiery surprise
as the sun shone magenta, over the rise.
The news today brings greater probability
unborn babies will get life possibility.