Disneyland Closes At 35

On Free Speech

I happened to be up late last night, bored, surfing the television channels for something more interesting than the incessant re-runs of Law and Order. I came upon a documentary concerning free speech in America, both historically and today. I'm sorry to say that I did not jot down the film's title.

I must say that the documentary provided a very even-handed account. There was perhaps a hint of liberal bias; still, it attempted to be fair in its presentation. If there had not been a hint of liberal bias there would have been a hint of conservative bias, or religious bias or... None of us suffer from zero preconceptions.

One segment of the film had to do with an Immigrant woman from Yemen. She had been brought to the United States by her parents at the age of three. I suppose she is now 40 years old or more. She appeared in all regards to be intelligent, well-educated, gentle and yet passionately committed to her profession and job as an Assistant School principal in New York City.

She had been chosen by the school board to become the principal of a bi-lingual school for Arab students. Her's was one of some 40 schools planned to address the needs of the many immigrant students of all nationalities, creeds, religions and cultures to be found in New York City.

As news of the impending opening of the school began to spread into the mainstream press this woman came under heavy attack from many sides of the political, religious and social spectrum. She was denounced as a hater of any religion other than Islam. She was portrayed as a zealot whose motives were pro-Arab and perhaps even pro-terrorist. Her school to be was described as a potential training ground for more zealots, and on and on. She was accused of saying that 9/11 never happened although she lived in the city and was present there on 9/11.

None of these accusations appear to have been true. Whether or not the public school system should set up special schools for the many ethnic and religious factions living in this country is another matter.

The issue here is that the press, at the bidding of a few powerful, ultra-conservatives, destroyed this woman's career. Not only did the school never open, she was asked to resign. Her supporters on the school board and in the Mayor's office did nothing to come to her aid. In the end they let one particularly zealous reporter ruin this woman.

I have some familiarity with this scenario. I find it very difficult to believe anything that I read in the newspapers or watch on television news.

There have been, over the course of 40 years, many stories (stories in which I played some role and of which I had intimate knowledge of the facts and details) aired on television or written up in the news, in which the facts were distorted, the details wrong, and the conclusions drawn wrong-headed and harmful. I have never known a reporter to get it all just right.

Perhaps the postmodernists are correct. There is no truth, only competing narratives.

The principal did not get a fair shake, she was allowed to speak on her own behalf, but her words never reached the public. They were distorted, taken out of context and butchered by the press.

Free speech isn't worth very much if there is no forum in which to speak it.

Why Mandarin Should be Taught in all U.S. Schools

I can remember a time, albeit 40 or 50 years ago, when made in Japan was a sure sign that you were attending the State Fair of Texas and had just won a cheap doll at one of the midway game booths. The only thing more lowly than made in Japan was made in China. No longer.

The Investor's Business Daily for June 29, 2009 lists five Chinese company stocks among its top ten picks. In fact,the number one stock listed is FUQI International, retailer of high quality gold, silver, diamonds and other precious stones.

The number two stock is VENCEINFO, a Chinese provider of outsourced software research and development.The numbers five, eight and ten on the list are also Chinese companies.

Investor's Business Daily lists 100 companies in its best of the week compilation. Chinese firms are not only in the top ten, but appear throughout the listing, i.e., Shanda Interact Ent appears at number thirteen with a note that reports "Chinese gaming firm flew past EPS and is up 283% in the past 12 quarters."

All this when at the same time nearly all American firms are struggling in the doldrums, and at a time when many American companies are being bought by the Chinese. The Chinese, according to a real estate acquaintance of mine, are also purchasing office buildings, shopping malls, large tracts of land for development, etc.

Would I be amiss in saying that I don't like the notion of huge Chinese investments in the United States which will allow them at some stage to be our landlord?

What do you think?

The Fight to Keep my Teeth

I realize that toothlessness was common in the early to mid point of the 20th century - not so much in today's world of implants, sonic cleanings, whitening procedures, crowns, veneers and so on. Being toothless today is a sure sign of abject poverty, homelessness, addiction to street drugs such as Crack or Methamphetamine, alcoholism and even mental illness.

Having healthy teeth and a sparkling smile is a must if one wants to be employed in any professional position. I'm not certain that a toothless person could find work anywhere in these United States.

I am attempting to remain employable; still, I am losing ground to dental problems that are too expensive to resolve. I'm told that I need 3 root canal procedures, three crowns, one filling and one implant. I have dental insurance, albeit not very good dental insurance. It will pay no more that $1500 in any one calendar year. My approximate costs for the above mentioned procedures is almost $6000.00.

I suppose the crowns are made from solid gold, festooned with chipped diamonds, else how could they possibly cost $1000 each? And the Dentist? She must think her time worth $400.00 per hour.

Fortunately all three unhealthy teeth are located in the back of my mouth. I think I will make a visit to a barber I know in a small town east of here, have a cup of Scotch and let him get to work.

I would just go to my Veterinarian, but he is more expensive than my dentist. He wants $300.00 to clean my cat's teeth.

A Question of Who Should Die?

I recently read an entry in www.perkersonpark.com blog. It was about a man named Naylor who died as the result of kidney failure. He needed dialysis on a regular basis. He did not recieve the treatment on a regular basis because he did not have health insurance.

The author of this post reported that Mr. Naylor had not made particularly good decisions during the course of his life. His financial status had been severely compromised by his poor decision making; thus, he had no money for health insurance. The central question in this blog entry was whether or not Mr. Naylor deserved to die for his mistakes in life which left him without the ability to purchase health insurance.

The answer, it seems to me, is clearly, NO!

Who deserves to die? Americans cannot even agree on whether or not the most heinous of criminals and murderers deserve to die for their actions. Think of the numerous murderers, sex offenders, cheats, crooks and generally disgusting human beings who commit a litany of crimes. We do not kill most of them and cannot decide whether we should or not.

If we can't say that a serial killer deserves to die as a consequence of paying for his poor decisions, how can we say that Mr. Naylor deserved to die? Does any child deserve to die? Does any Senior citizen deserve to have to choose between purchasing groceries or medicine? The serial killer, whether on death row for 13 years awaiting execution, or doing life, has access to both food and medical care. He pays not one cent for his medications, his food, or his health care. The food may not be gourmet and the medical care inferior to a good civilian hospital, but it is care nonetheless. It's better than Mr. Naylor received.

The question now becomes, how best to provide health care for every citizen. I am no expert of course, but I have looked into the matter to some small degree. As usual, I found conflicting information from which it is difficult to draw a logical conclusion.

Some say that health care provided by the government is awful. They report long waits for appointments. One person, now living in the United States, told a tale of how her parents and relatives, living in a city of 350,000 persons, have to wait over 18 months for a dermatology consult. That might be okay if all one suffers from is acne, but not for something more serious.

When I lived in German, albeit many years ago, my landlord died of heart failure. He had been on the waiting list for surgery for more than 6 months. On the other hand, I know an American who ended up in a Paris hospital while on a European tour and received great care at no cost.

Our government does not seem to have done well at anything for many years. Gridlock has been the order of the day for the past 3 decades. Our government does not do well in diplomacy, warfare, regulation of financial cheats, dealing with criminals, providing a decent public education in a safe environment, updating and repairing the country's infrastructure, etc. Why would they do any better at providing quality healthcare for all Americans?

Certainly the private sector has done no better. Almost all my friends and aquaintances tell stories of denied claims, being shorted on benefits, increased co-pays, outrageous doctor and hospital bills, lack of quality care, etc. Greed, avarice and dishonesty characterize corporate health care. Mr. Naylor might well have died in any case given the state of American medicine. It is not the best in the world.

I am not a fan of Michael Moore. I do not completely believe the information presented in any of his documentaries. He has an agenda, as perhaps do we all, but some of the things he says have the ring of truth about them. I believe the inmates at Gitmo received better health care than most of us can afford. Mr. Naylor would probably not have died had he been a Gitmo internee. Perhaps he would now be living in Bermuda at taxpayer expense.

What is the definition of moderate?

It seems to me that most Americans have a shared understanding of moderation. One is moderate when one does not overeat, over indulge in alcohol, act in bigoted and racist ways, and when one has as open mind. A moderate person is more likely to be fair-minded than a zealot on either end of any continuum.

Where is moderation gone? Our political environment is a classic example of self interest and insensitivity on both ends, with no voices heard in the middle.

Aristotle, in his Virtue Ethics, advocated for the Golden Mean. Cowardice is thus a vice of deficiency, Foolhardiness a vice of excess, and Courage a virtue to be found between the two polar opposites. Virtues must be learned. Being virtuous takes practice and requires the ability to reason in logical fashion. Americans seem to have misplaced that ability.

Our Congress demonstrates very little virtue and many vices of deficiency and excess. Excessive, unsustainable spending is a vice of excess. It robs Americans of their freedoms now and into the future. Allowing children, the elderly, and the infirm, health care is a vice of deficiency. Sick persons need access to good health care and the money exists to provide this care. The money is simply spent elsewhere.

The bills that come out of our Congress are full of wasteful spending. Earmarks and other methods of stealing money from the public to fatten the treasuries of our elected representatives campaign chests abound.

Americans, I believe, desperately want to be free to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They cannot do so when the government becomes more and more monolithic from moment to moment. I understand that paying taxes is a responsibility of any person living under a social contract, as we all do. I owe my fair share and I pay it and more. I do not want to pay more. I want the monies I am now paying to be used for the common defense, health care for those who need it but cannot afford it, and basic infrastructure. It would be nice to drive on the streets of my city without risking the undercarriage of my vehicle every time I venture forth. It would be nice to have trash pickup twice a week, like I once had, rather than once a week. The results of that change truly stink.

I don't believe in hate speech. It is a form of assault. I don't believe in the hate which leads to hate speech, but I believe in free speech. I don't want to be afraid that every time I open my mouth that I have to be worried about being castigated, or complained about, or informed upon, or written up by the speech police. Most of us are able to be free in our speech and civil at the same time. Most of know how to disagree without being disagreeable; still, when is the last time you said what you really thought in public?

Can we not place moderate persons in Congress? Can we not remove those, Republican and Democrat alike who do nothing but serve their own interests? Is it so difficult to spot a rat in office? I think not, but in order to do so we must all be moderate and thoughtful. I cannot in good conscience be a partisan for any political party. Can you?

And now we have Letterman

It seems as if most of us can empathize with Governor Palin and her husband regarding the jokes made by David Letterman. The jokes were inappropriate, at least in the estimation of many Americans; however, jokes are often inappropriate. In fact it is often the case that what makes a joke funny is the fact that it uses hyperbole to such an extent that the material contained in the joke makes us laugh. I can hardly think of any notable comic from Lenny Bruce to Robin Williams who do not use hyperbole, and I can think of none who do not tell jokes on occasion which could be construed by many as inappropriate.

Isn't it the very nature of many jokes to be made at the expense of someone? Ethnic jokes, fat people jokes, blonde jokes, etc., are all, to some degree, inappropriate. The take that any particular person has to a joke is always subjective. I laughed at the Letterman jokes, while at the same time feeling that they were inappropriate in some context. I would not have appreciated the same jokes being made about either of  my daughters. I certainly understand why Governor Palin and her husband found the jokes to be offensive.

David Letterman is a comedian. He depends on his viewing audience to provide him with status and a very good standard of living. He has been a talk show host for many years and the majority of people laugh at his jokes and tune in to his nightly show in order to be entertained. I do not watch his show very often, and I did not often watch Leno or Carson before him. They are,or were, all funny to a degree, but not to the degree that I want to remain awake until midnight to view their shows.

David Letterman is not guilty of a crime. He violated no laws. No one is forced to watch David Letterman. If even one half of his viewers tuned him out he would soon be out of business and out of a job. If we allow politics or people in powerful positions to punish other persons for simply being sometimes offensive, where will it end? Who will decide what is offensive and what is not?

As a returning Vietnam veteran in the sixties I was offended by many of the most popular songs, especially by a song by Country Joe and the Fish in which one the verses said "be the first one on your block to have your son come home in a box." I had my reasons for being offended; still, we have to let people like Country Joe have the freedom to say his piece in order for each of us to have the freedom to say ours.

Is there anything positive to report?

Yes, there is. Where the possibility for evil lurks the possibility for good still exists. Where bad men seem to prevail there is the chance that good men will later prevail. Where there is sickness, there is the possibility for health, even if the odds seem insurmountable. At the moment many things seem insurmountable. Many things seem inevitable, even pre-ordained.

One of the cliches making its way into many news programs of late is the statement "elections have consequences." Do you immediately recognize the profundity of this statement? I do not. All choices lead to actions and actions lead to consequences, some small, some large. I can make the choice to smoke from age 12 to 85 and reasonably expect that I will die at some point far short of 85 as the result of smoking related disease.

I can lie to my friends as well as my enemies and reasonably expect that I will be found out somewhere along the way. I can cheat on my spouse and reasonably expect that if I persist I will eventually be found out.

Barack Obama should reasonably expect that when none of his campaign promises bear fruit that he will be found out; still, I'm not so sure that will hurt him in the way that it would hurt you or me. If we were to be FOUND OUT on any of the above scenarios we would lose a friend, a job, a spouse or our life?

George Bush was not exempt. He was found out to some degree, although I am not even sure that he knew that he was lying. I think he expected the U.S. Forces to come up with massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction.

I do not think that President Obama really believed that he could save the economy, help the little guy, help the big guy, provide quality healthcare for every American, or anything else he promised. He believed, hey, I am a likeable guy, a great speaker, and I could sell ice to Eskimos. I'm gonna take this great 8 year run and go down in history as the great communicator. In fact it may be that he believes that he might even be able to pass a constitutional amendment which allows Presidents to serve more than 8 years. How would he do that. Think about it and it will come to you.

Was George Bush a great President? I think I would have to say no. Was he a great orator or communicator? Again I would have to say no. Was he some evil, megalomaniac psychopath? No. Did we really need to embark on a war with Iraq? No. As a two time Vietnam veteran I promise I have seen the movie.

Elections have consequences! That statement is now directed to President Obama, the highly intelligent and articulate Speaker of the House, as well as the Senate Majority Leader, and Democrats and Republicans in general who have done not one thing to advance the position of this country over the past 16 years or more.

Speaker Pelosi is an embarrassment.

Senator Reid is a petulant baby who wears his heart on his sleeve. Chris Dodd would not be believed by an intelligent 4 year old. Barney Frank should be part of Barnum and Bailey rather than Congress. George Bush should have operated a hardware store in Austin. Dick Cheny and Colin Powell are the most intelligent of the lot, with the possible exception of tricky Bill Clinton. Is he also stupid? No. He is quite intelligent and actually, despite his perceived moral depravity, did a reasonable job of doing a very hard job .

It is said that those who cannot do, teach. That statement could apply to me as well. It could certainly apply to our President. As far as I know he never headed a boy scout troop. Is he intelligent? I would say yes without hesitation.

Is Joe Biden. I would say no. Nancy? No. Harry? No. I have not heard anyone speak on the national news in more than six months who seemed remotely intelligent with the exception of Jeb Hensarling, a congressman from Dallas.

Who will deal decisively with North Korea, Iran, Osama bin Ladem, Pakistan, Venezuela, and on and on? Will Barack, in his never ending search for Political Correctness, curtsy to every petty dictator and tyrant in the world? Perhaps he should. George didn't get us anywhere. Perhaps a curtsy would be seen as a form of flattery and rewarded by not launching a nuclear weapon on Israel or South Korea for an additional week, or something on that order.

So, what about it? Anything positive to report?