JACK'S BLOG
|
|
1/6/2013 4 Comments The world may not understand America's problem. What other people celebrated individualists?OpinionTHE UNITED STATES was conceived by individualists, its wilderness was tamed by individualists, and its economy was built by individualists. Americans used to celebrate individualists and their individualism, but that all changed. The majority of Americans now seem to abhor them. The adolescent need to be part of a group, to seek identity in a group, and be comforted by a group, persists into adulthood. It's a defensible attitude when you consider that the world and life are far more complex than they used to be. They're often overwhelming, especially if you suffer from any insecurities. The responsibilities and liberties that individuals thrive on are a heavy load. To many, it is an unnatural burden. If the study of history has taught me anything, it is that few societies have tolerated individuals. Indeed, most have strict social codes against individual liberty and responsibility. This lesson can be seen clearly in the Bible. The Jews were alloted far more liberty than most peoples of the early world. However, they ultimately decided that they too needed a king, someone to make decisions for the community and bear the responsibility for their consequences. David was presented with the mantle of authority after slaying Goliath, and he faltered when he became besotted with Bathsheba. Solomon became king and then became besotted with the Queen of Sheba. It seems that the Bible is warning us. Even the bravest and wisest among us have a hard time making good decisions and the mistakes of the mighty fall on everyone's head. Still, as I have observed, the majority in America seem to want to follow this course. They have elected a new breed of bullies to eradicate individualism through the application of rules and regulations. Inasmuch as these laws are extra-Constitutional, a majority of Americans are beginning to agitate to diminish the Constitution. A recent New York Times article penned by a professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, advocates abandoning the blueprint of America's government as antiquated and ill-conceived. I can't imagine that his students will be champions of liberty when they graduate. Fortunately for those of use who prize our individuality and our liberties, America is not yet a democracy. The majority does not rule. Although its influence is flagging, the Constitution still rules and individual rights prevail. The Attorney General has launched an all out assault on individual rights without waiting for the people to cast aside the Constitution. With the mainstream press providing cover by not publicizing his more flagrant assaults, Mr. Holder has been sending teams of armed federal agents to bully individuals and small businesses without bothering to provide even a modicum of legal cover. Ignoring Constitutional mandates for Writ of Habeas Corpus and legally specific search warrants has become standard operating procedure for America's Justice Department. One can only wonder when his goon squads will begin appearing on the steps of local and state governments and America will become a de facto federal democracy. I don't expect to alarm the majority with any of this. By their votes, most Americans seem to concur with the Administration in these actions. The minority, the individualists who fume and bluster daring federal agents to just try and take away their rights, lack organization and may be picked off one-by-one by these Gestapo-like tactics.
America is now fragmented, possibly irrevocably. Compromise seems to be out of the question. Is it time to consider a splitting of America? Should we allow those who are willing to trade their rights and liberties for security to live in one part of the country while the individualists stalk their dreams in another? Or, will the individualists simply vent their annoyance ineffectually while the majority refashions America.
4 Comments
1/5/2013 2 Comments Why do fairy tales portray nobility as noble or romantic when most are descended from bullies?OpinionBEFORE THE GUN, bullies ruled the world. A man who was given the leisure to practice every day with his weapons, developed the skills necessary to oppress his community. Peasants, farmers, artisans, craftsmen, and scholars, all feared him. They strove to keep him happy and fed, warmed and well-housed. It didn't matter to them if he were their lord and master or their lord and master's enemy. All people lived in fear of bullies. Dominance was based on upper body strength. Casting a javelin. Swinging a sword. Smashing with a fist. Absorbing an enemy's blow. All required well-developed arms and chests. Running was for cowards, and cowards lost the luxury of being taken care of by their communities. Human physiology dictates that upper body strength is the domain of the male. Despite the illusions (or delusions) portrayed in today's films and TV shows, women have always been, and might always have been, victims to the physical dominance of brutes. Although no one has ever proven that nobles exercised droit du seigneur – the putative right of a feudal lord to take the virginity of his serfs' daughters – it is far more believable than scenes of anorexic women overwhelming men using brute force only. However, a woman with a gun is a force to be reckoned with. Very little imagination is required to see how the gun, especially the handgun, came to be known as the “peacemaker” and an “equalizer”. Why then are guns feared? Is it because they appeal to the same primitive emotions that caused early man to cower before thunder and lightning? After all, the gun also delivers its lethal charge with a flash and a bang. Benjamin Franklin taught us the nature of lightning and how to tame it. We no longer have to fear it as a capricious and malevolent god. Still, more than 24,000 people die every year from lightning strikes. An average of fifty-one in the United States. You didn't know that? I'm not surprised. It's not a well reported fact. Who's concerned with the lives of 24,000 killed by “an act of God”? We don't seem too concerned with children killed in the barrios of our cities either. Countless hundreds of them are murdered every year and there is no public outcry. Their passings are hardly noticed in our news media. However, when a tragedy strikes close to the homes of decent folk, there is a public outcry: “Ban guns!” How silly. It's obvious that removing all guns, even if such were possible, would destroy the peace and we would return to living in fear of bullies. Some may argue that we don't need guns to protect ourselves. We have the police. There are two problems with that argument. Firstly, there is no policeman sitting here in this room as I write this, and I daresay there is none sitting at your side as you read it. I doubt if there is one within earshot. Certainly, there are many only minutes away. Just dial 911 and they'll come, and they'll arrive long after they're needed. In countries, such as Great Britain, where gun ownership has been significantly curtailed, violent crimes against people in their homes has risen markedly. Criminals are assured that they can invade houses with impunity. The occupants have been disarmed by their government. Secondly, there is a new problem. Many cities are losing their police forces. They and other public servants are being dismissed as municipalities are becoming bankrupt. Critical public services are being curtailed. How sad that voters didn't concern themselves more with electing people who would manage their affairs, especially their budgets, responsibly, rather than looking for ways to interfere with our natural rights to fashion a better, fairer society.
Unfortunately, the politicians who are elected are among the worst of hypocrites when it comes to guns. Recognizing that it is politically expedient to be against crime and natural catastrophes, and to preach the evils of guns as well as fornication and addiction, those preaching the loudest are often the first to avail themselves of these vices. They also send their own children to well-guarded schools while announcing to the monsters of the world that our children are attending schools where no such protection as armed teachers or guards will interfere in any massacres that they may wish to perpetrate. Now, as we begin a new year, look back at the old one and we are confronted with a stark reality. It stares back at us from Chicago. Its overlord, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is one of the greatest political bullies of our day. He has led the fight to make his city a gun free zone and every year, under his stewardship, violent death by criminals wielding guns has risen to new records. Chicago is now the murder capital of the country, possibly the world. Still, our President will not touch this fact as he shed tears over the tragic deaths of school children in Connecticut, but will not mention the even more horrific blood trail that follows him from his home district. Also, consider the strident call by Senator Diane Feinstein to ban “assault weapons” like the one used by the mass murderer in Connecticut. Is the Senator so blinded by her fear and ideology that she can't see that Connecticut already bans such weapons? Why would she believe that another such ban would make children safer? CubaWITH CASTRO IN PRISON and most of his rebel band dead, Batista was confident of his position. In 1954 he granted an interview with American correspondents. He proclaimed that Cuba had finally achieved political stability and was becoming more economically diversified. For proof of his claims, Batista released his political prisoners including Castro and the few survivors of his attack on the Moncada army barracks near Santiago de Cuba. Batista obviously underestimated Castro. Had he been paying attention, Batista would have been alerted by Castro's continued political agitation, even while behind bars. Fidel renamed his organization the “26th de Julio Movement” (MR-26-7) commemorating the date of his attack on Moncada. Even so, Batista freed Castro under a program of general amnesty.
Castro was received by his followers with great fanfare and celebration. They carried him through the streets on their shoulders. Fidel immediately set about writing and appearing in radio interviews. Fidel and his brother, Raul, fled to Mexico which had a long tradition of sheltering exiled insurgents. They were followed by a few of the Moncada raiders and other dissidents. There they began planning an invasion of Cuba. Fidel enlisted Colonel Alberto Bayo, a fellow Cuban who had participated in the Spanish Civil War as well as the Cuban Revolution. Colonel Bayo distinguished himself for his courage and tactical acumen, but his side, the Loyalists lost and he took refuge in Mexico as an instructor at the Military Academy of Guadalajara until he joined the Fidelistas. It seems that Castro had little time for military training. Fortunately for Fidel, Batista's army was well trained but poorly led, and Castro's failings as a battlefield commander went unnoticed. While his rebels trained in Mexico, Castro was kept busy traveling the United States, soliciting funds for his invasion of Cuba. He found contributors within the Cuban-American community but most withheld any significant funding because Fidel refused to offer them high office in his new government. Castro resented the fact that so many were willing to sit back and let him risk his life to depose Batista, and then turn over the reins of government to someone else. Thus, much of Castro's backing came from Americans who were inspired by his impassioned pleas for Cuban liberty. Fidel wanted an airplane to insert his rebel band onto Cuban shores, but never garnered sufficient funds. He settled for an aging cabin cruiser, the Granma. 1/2/2013 12 Comments Will history absolve Castro or will he forever languish in the company of dictators?CubaFIDEL CASTRO'S RISE from revolutionary leader to dictator shouldn't have surprised anyone who has followed the history of Cuba. He began as his predecessors began, championing Cuba for Cubans, collaborated with foreign imperialists to create the illusion of economic stability, and then elevated himself to dictator when the people failed to grasp the reins of their own destiny. Castro's career from the 1948 student riots in Bogotá, Columbia, to his exile from Cuba in 1953, was punctuated by his famous “History Will Absolve Me” speech. The illegitimate son of a wealthy island landowner, Castro discovered his voice and his ability to lead men during his student days at Havana University where he studied law. Many people look back at this period, especially his participation in the student riots, as proof of his communist leanings. However, I can't find any proof of this.
Castro's early writings and speeches seemed more consistent with the anarcho-syndicalist movement that originated in Eastern Europe during the late 19th Century and found great acceptance in Latin America during the early 20th Century. Although the Socialists and the Anarcho-Syndicalists both rejected capitalism, they were not allies. Karl Marx feared that the Anarcho-Syndicalists would dilute his movement and repudiated them. It is also significant that, shortly after driving Batista from the island, Castro made his first overtures for an alliance with the Americans. He only turned to the Soviets for economic help after the Eisenhower Administration openly rebuffed him and publicly insulted him. Kennedy exacerbated the rift by then mounting a series of attempts to either overthrow or assassinate Castro. Unfortunately, the Americans underestimated the man. It was obvious from the beginning that Castro was a firebrand. While still a student in Havana, Castro led an abortive raid against the Dominican Republic in a desperate bid to overthrown that island's iron-fisted dictator, Rafael Trujillo. When he graduated in 1950, Castro found little opportunity professionally in a society that boasted too many lawyers. He took a few pro bono cases, but spent most of his time working for the Orthodox Party that opposed Batista, fashioning itself as the true inheritor of the revolution. Castro was a candidate for the Cuban legislature in 1952 when Batista seized control of the government and suspended the constitution. Championing the restoration of constitutional government on the island, he then led his abortive attack on army barracks at Moncada near Santiago de Cuba. His band of rebels had intended to seize weapons and ammunition there to arm their rebel band. Unfortunately, Castro was never an adept military commander and the mission failed through poor command and coordination. Most of his band was killed and the rest scattered. Castro was captured and would have been executed on the spot except for the intervention of his archbishop. Fidel's early education had been at the feet of the Jesuits and he was a pious man until he declared himself a communist. During his trial, Castro made a four-hour speech in his own defense in which he condemned Batista and his government, and declared that history would absolve him. He was sentenced to serve fifteen years in prison of the Isle of Pines, but was later exiled to Mexico. Good ReadBonnie Trachtenberg is the author of the bestselling romantic comedies, Neurotically Yours, and Wedlocked, which won the Gold Readers Favorite Award, the Beach Book Festival Award and the Indie Excellence Award. She writes a monthly advice column for LoveaHappyEnding.com. Bonnie lives in New York with her husband, four cats and a dog. What is the one book you want us to read (title, genre, and availability). I’d love for everyone to read my newest book, Neurotically Yours. It’s a romantic comedy that’s available at Amazon http://amzn.to/HY4PyF and Barnes & Noble http://bit.ly/KumteQ Give us a one sentence synopsis. Dara Harrison, a single, thirty-seven-year-old advice columnist, opens a successful Los Angeles dating service for the romantically challenged, and finds herself forced to join the ranks of its lonely-heart clientele. Who are the main characters and who would you like to see portray them in a movie? The main characters are Dara Harrison, owner of MateSearch. I’d like to see Rachel McAdams or Jennifer Aniston in the role. Her best friend and co-owner is Reggie Dayton, and Daniel Sunjata would be great. To play handsome stuntman Nick Wyatt, I see Josh Brolin. Tell us about the story, but please don't reveal too much. Smart, attractive, and ambitious, thirty-seven-year-old Dara Harrison is, nonetheless, still single—and on sabbatical from dating. Ironically Los Angeles’ most renowned relationship advice columnist, Dara has become a Southland sensation with her “tell-it-like-it-is” approach to the mating game. Parlaying her success into a new business, Dara launches a revolutionary dating service geared for the perennially single and romantically challenged. Its no-holds-barred theme soon makes the company a roaring success, even catapulting Dara onto the national talk show scene—until, of course, it all backfires. With her company under threat and a publicity stunt gone haywire, Dara is forced to join the ranks of her lonely heart clientele, and suddenly realizes that saving the business she cherishes, means facing her lifelong fears—and maybe even falling in love again. What inspired you to write this book and how long did it take? Neurotically Yours took me about a year to write and another few months of editing. It was inspired by my two, long decades out on the dating scene. All the crazy experiences I (and some of my friends’) weathered were the perfect fodder for this book. I often wondered what it would be like if there was a dating service that forced its clients to “let it all hang out” in an attempt to make dating more “real” and productive. It sounds good in theory, but of course in my book, chaos ensues! What other books have you written?
My debut novel is Wedlocked. It’s also a bestselling romantic comedy, and it won the Gold Readers Favorite Award, the Beach Book Festival Award, and the Indie Excellence Award. Which authors inspired you, your style? One of my all-time favorites was Nora Ephron. It was so sad to see her go last year. I love her philosophy about taking life’s hardest times and making them funny. That’s what I did with Wedlocked, which was inspired by my first brief, disastrous marriage. Where can we learn more about you and your books? Readers can learn much more about me and my work on my website: http://www.BonnieTrachtenberg.com/ They can also read my relationship advice column at http://loveahappyending.com/editor-bonnie-trachtenberg/ How can we follow you? Twitter, Facebook, Google+, etc. Find me on Facebook: http://www.Facebook.com/BonnieTrachtenberg Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/writebrainedny Follow me on Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/btracht/ Is there anything else you would like us to know? If you enjoy my books, I’d love to hear from you and can be reached through my website. 1/1/2013 7 Comments Is British humor an acquired or inherited taste? Either way, Doc Martin will tickle your funny boneTelevisionI'M NOT SURE if British humor is an acquired or an inherited taste. You couldn't prove it one way or the other by me. My mother was half-British and I may have acquired it from her by either method. All I know is that it is distinctly different from American humor. Thus, my recommendation that you watch Doc Martin must be taken with a grain of salt. The Brits do silly so much better than Americans. I have a theory as to why. One doesn't expect a Brit, especially one born to the privileged classes, to be silly. The unexpectedness of silliness from such a person catches you by surprise, whereas an American acting silly is, well, just silly. Thus, most British comedians succeed best when they learn to emulate the manner and speech of one well-bred and well-educated who then does something silly. Cary Grant was a marvelous example. Yes, he was an exceptionally handsome man, a great romantic lead. But, he was also a great physical comedian. Watch Houseboat with Sophia Loren, as he whacks his head on the passageway every time he descends the stairs. It's a great running gag because he pulls it off naturally, with great aplomb. In Doc Martin, Martin Clunes, an exceptionally unhandsome man, plays Dr. Martin Ellingham, a prominent London surgeon who abandons his practice when he develops severe hemophobia. He obtains a posting as General Practitioner (GP) in a sleepy Cornish coastal town. Inasmuch as his former patients presented themselves in operating theaters, Doc Martin, as he objects to be known, never developed a warm bedside manner, leading him into numerous humorous confrontations. His aunt, who has lived in the town all her life, tries to guide him around the worst of his social faux pas but Doc Martin is reluctant to change. He believes that he is being proper and professional. The program is littered with wonderfully quirky characters. A totally incompetent and distracted receptionist. A plumber and his son who immediately put me in mind of O'Reilly's Crew from Fawlty Towers. (Yes, I am no newcomer to British comedy.) An insecure constable of the law. A ranger, a Bosnian war veteran, who lives with an invisible six-foot squirrel. Yes, they're all silly, but they pull it off so well.
The love interest is a primary school teacher who Doc Martin examines on an airplane without her permission while on his way to be interviewed for the posting. She happens to be a member of the panel who examines him. (You'll just have to watch Season 1 – Episode 1 to sort out that mess.) Doc Martin is great viewing in the lull between regular programming. If nothing else, it will provide some laughs to distract you from the political theater now playing out in the world's capitals. There are already five seasons in the can, all available on Netflix or you can purchase them in boxed sets. Please begin at the beginning or you're bound to be utterly confused. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|