Disneyland Closes At 35

Waiting on Test Results

It seems to me that waiting on test results, whether academic, related to employment, or medical, is one of the most stressful events to confront human beings. I am particularly averse to both medical tests and waiting on the results of medical tests.

I feel, on the one hand, that no news is good news. Surely if some horrific findings came to light as a result of the tests the doctor would contact me immediately. Experience has proven that this is not the case. Many doctors want to delay contacting their patients in the event of horrible news. Why call on Friday and ruin the weekend when Monday will do just as well and allow the patient to have one last nice weekend?

My late wife, the picture of good health and only 49 years old, agreed to come with me to my doctor where we were both scheduled for physical exams. She was 5 ft 7 in and weighed 122 pounds. She was running three miles per day on the tred mill I had purchased for her as a Christmas present.

We arrived the first week in February for our exams. I was examined, and then she was examined next. We both underwent the usual blood chemistry studies and Xrays. One week later she was diagnosed with cancer. After 18 months of chemotherapy and radiation my wife died. Medical science could not save her. It had not saved her mother, or 2 of her Aunts, or 3 of her uncles. It merely held the inevitable at bay for a few miserable months.

My wife's brother, my brother-in-law, was diagnosed with cancer in June of 2009. He too has undergone all the tests, the chemotherapy, and the radiation treatments. He underwent a CT scan to discover how well the treatments have worked last week. He is to obtain the results tomorrow.

I cannot know exactly what he might be thinking on this night. It is after midnight, but I imagine he is still awake. He is 66 years old. What must he be thinking?

I am 63 years old. I have not had a physical exam in 8 years. I have no faith that medical science could cure me if they found a problem with my health. Stupid, you say. I should have a colonopscopy, my annual PSA tests, my annual chest Xray, all the blood chemistries. The early bird avoids the worm in this case. You may be correct; however, one thing I know is that if you go to enough doctors they will in fact find something wrong with your health. I also know that the attempted cure can sometimes be worse than the disease.

My wife had stage 4 cancer when it was found, even though she had no symptoms. She had no real hope of survival. Her last 18 months of life were spent in misery, pain, nausea and more pain. If she had known she would have opted for quality rather than quantity of life.

My brother-in-law is no doubt awake at this late hour as he prepares to confront his test results. I too am awake, thinking of all the test results I have waited on in the past and hoping for better news this time.

An Overabundance of Directness

I respect people who are direct, who get to the point, who don't (in my words) sugar coat or intentionally soften their remarks just to make certain that they are politically correct and in danger of offending no one. The fact that I prefer people to be direct has made me think that others appreciate directness and cogency as much as I do. I am chagrined to find that they do not. In fact, theyfind directness to be rude, offensive and hurtful.

I was direct, to the point, and steadfast with someone I love in a recent conversation. I thought I had been instructive in my argument, as well as insightful, even helpful. I was wrong. All I really accomplished was to intimidate my loved one and hurt her feelings.

Perhaps directness isn't the positive character trait I thought it to be.

After the Eclipse

I am writing a sequel to Disneyland Closes at 35, my first published novel. It is entitled After the Eclipse. The image is my mind is a period of historical eclipse that began in the 1960's and ended in the 1980's. The sequel is set in the period 2000 through 2009, remembering the eclipse, yet trying to move beyond this period in order to create a future.

I once thought of the decade of the 60's and 70's as frenetic, deranged and misguided. Society was in turmoil. Chaos was the order of the day. In retrospect, it wasn't all bad. Some degree of order came out of the chaos and some much needed change came out of the turmoil. Civil RIghts were finally honored for all Americans, although much still needed to be worked out. Women began to make some inroads into the employment and social mainstream, although there is still work to be done. So - some things were resolved and life, in some ways became more free. Who can argue with the need for human beings, all human beings, to be free?

At the same time that more people were becoming free, other people became less free. I think the name of this enemy is Postmodernism. This philosophy holds, strangely enough, that nothing is true, that everything is merely a narrative, with no one narrative being any more or less true than another.

Postmodernism, oddly enough, somehow became linked with Political Correctness. How? The two would seem to be diametrically opposed. Political Correctness, in the postmodern understanding, should be thought of as nothing more than a competing narrative, no more or less true that any other narrative.

That has not been the case. Political Correctness has been employed to make all Americans less free. Do you remember the last time you felt free to voice an opinion. It was long ago. Why do we not feel free to say the things we really feel? How many of you feel that you are walking on eggshells most of the day. At work. At school. In social gatherings. It has been a long time since most people voiced their true opinions. When will that end?

Let's Just Give it Up!

I recently wrote a post in which I questioned the logic and reasonableness of letting our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan know our plans, in regards to combatting them, by letting them know that we are only committed for the next 18 months. I also questioned the rules of engagements under which our troops labor. We cannot attack holy places, although these are the places which often serve as strongholds for our enemies. I wondered why we do not utilize our modern weaponry, our bombers, our fighter planes, our missiles, our advanced methods of attack. I now know why.

We do not have the will to win any engagement. We, the majority of Americans, believe that no one should be killed in a war, that nothing short of defending our own beaches justifies even engaging in a war, that waterboarding is a huge sin, although it does not kill anyone. In the words of Jack Nicholson, we can't handle the truth. The truth is that we don't mind short changing our soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines. We let them fight with rifles and bayonets as if it were the civil war. We do not support them with our big hitters. There is no shock and awe. There is no display of our real power. We do our troops a disservice. The enemy is attempting to kill them and yet we will not let our troops fight back. We tie their hands and we help the enemy to kill them. We have spent billions of dollars on weaponry that we do not have the guts to employ. Given all this, I have changed my mind.

The President should call our troops home. We should simply pick up sticks and retreat from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Korea and everywhere else in the world where we have troops deployed. Screw it.

This is the best course of action given our lack of will to forge a war. Of course, those military personnel who have given lives, legs, arms, hope and future to our weak effort will be pissed. Can you blame them. Why did they lose their lives and legs and arms and hope and future? For nothing it seems. Just like Vietnam. How proud we should be of ourselves.

Once again we have shown ourselves to be weak of will and short of the abilility to live up to our committments. The world knows who we are and they laugh at us. We have no national intestinal fortitude and they know it. In short, we are a fat, lazy, self-absorbed joke.

We should be very proud.

On Civil Discourse

It seems to me that the pulse of civil discourse is thin, erratic and weak. The fact is that civil discourse is dying of old age. Its time, it seems, has come and gone. One can no longer disagree without offending someone, some cause, some special interest, or some sensibility. It is best to open one's mouth as little as possible, to utililize language only when necessary to obtain life's absolute necessities.

When sick it is necessary to at least offer the doctor some information regarding symptoms. When asked a question it is necessary to make a polite reply, but to do more is dangerous. To actually voice an opinion is very dangerous.

The cost of an opinion could well be one's career, one's reputation, one's status in the community. It is best to pretend that no one opinion is any better than any other opinion. It is best not to judge anything or anyone. One can be labeled, and once labeled one's life will change.

I don't want to be labeled as a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative, a Liberal, a Chauvanist, a Bigot, or any of the other numerous labels. I do want to be able to hold a reasoned opinion and to voice my opinion without being castigated for having done so. I want to engage in civil dIscourse in order that my views can be heard and examined and in order to hear and examine the views of others. I cannot learn from others if I do not know what they think, feel and believe. They cannot learn from me if my thoughts and ideas are immediately rejected upon some partisan grounds.

I am weary of having to listen to radio talk show hosts, CNN, Fox, pundits, political operatives and government officials in an effort to be an informed citizen. Fox is partisan, CNN is partisan, Talk Show hosts are partisan. The narrative they weave is a partisan narrative designed only to pursuade. This is not intellectual discourse and it is certainly not civil.

I would like to have a reasoned, respectful and civil discourse with those with whom I disagree. For instance, I would like to be able to say that I do believe that our nation is moving towards Socialism without being attacked as a moronic alarmist. Perhaps we should be moving in that direction. Socialism is a term, it has a definition, it is neither moral or immoral or necessarily right or wrong. It is simply a form of government. It is not a four letter word. I might be convinced to take a different view by a reasoned argument.

I feel that it is ill advised to tell an enemy, in advance, that my forces will engage for eighteen months and then come home. It seems to me to be a poor strategy; still, I might be convinced by a reasoned argument.

I feel that Afghanistan bears a good deal of resemblance to Vietnam. I know that the Vietnam war could have been won. The definition of won is straightforward. The communists would not have taken over the administration of the country and one million persons would not have been killed or imprisoned when we left. I feel that the war in Afghanistan can be won. I have a reasoned argument in support of my views, but I dare not pose it too often or I will be labeled.

I feel that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan should be changed. I cannot understand why we do not employ cruise and tomahawk missiles to destroy Taliban strongholds. I cannot understand why we do not attack any position in which we find the enemy, whether it be a private home, Mosque or otherwise. I do not understand why many Americans think that our presence in Afghanistan is not justified. I cannot imagine why we do not put more pressure on the Pakistani government; still, I might think otherwise if I could have a civil discourse with someone who thinks differently and who presents a well reasoned argument.

I do not understand why our President was not more impassioned in his speech at West Point. I cannot fathom how anyone could have watched the reaction of the cadets in the audience and not observed how little they empathized with the President's speech. I don't think they wanted to hear about the cost of prosecuting the war, especially in light of the huge expenditures that have occurred both during the Bush administration and now in the Obama administration. I think they would rather have liked to have a rousing, committed, and heartfelt committment to prosecute and win the war in Afghanistan. Again, to win, is straightforward. The Taliban is destroyed, Bin Laden is killed along with all his cadre, Pakistan is cleared of terrorists, and the threat of terroism to the United States is repelled. I don't think they wanted to hear that we will play until halftime, forfeit the game, and come home; still, I might be convinced by a civil and reasoned argument.

It would have been fine with me if the President had simply said, "this war was a bad idea and I am bringing the troops home." It is the half measures that I question.

Is there anyone out there who wants to engage in civil discourse?