In the Days Before Time

There was a time, when I was a boy, where the world was on the verge of annihilation, but I didn’t realize it.  The young never understand the seriousness of the adults and I was no different.  We would have drills in school where we would hear an alarm and we would dutifully go sit in the halls with our backs against the lockers and heads tucked between our legs.  Seemed pretty stupid to me at the time, and as I reflect back on those days, it still seems pretty stupid.

Back then we had a number of state institutions where we locked people away so they couldn’t hurt themselves or others.  These institutions had started as the progressive movement sought to create an ordered society, and provide the best possible treatment for those suffering from schizophrenia, depression, addiction, or dementia.  With the advent of psychotropic drugs, they evolved into a storage facility where people were locked up, drugged with Thorazine, and kept like zombies by fashionably dressed nurses and attendants.  Apparently this progressive idea was abandoned when it became too expensive and the progressive movement felt it better to keep the mentally ill in mainstream society.  I wonder if we were to look back to the 1890’s would we have seen the conservatives resisting the creation of these large state hospitals?

Today I look at the buildings that contained so much life through the first 80 years of the twentieth century and I am saddened by the decay they reflect.  It is, in a very real way, a reflection of the society.  We can speculate as to what is best for the mentally ill, but as I think about today, are we  more humane or were we actually more caring in the years before the social engineers told us how we should be?

Now a watch governs me, and we have turned politics into open warfare based on religion, race, or any number of controversial adversarial topics.  I think when I retire I will stop wearing a watch.

Not All Good Ideas are Great!

It was a warm spring day here in Northwest Florida.  That day, like most of my days, involved talking with various agencies, reading draft test plans and reports, and doing all the “administriva” necessary to keep a flying test squadron running smoothly.  The sun was shining, the winds were light, and I had ridden my bike the five miles to work.  In the morning briefs my test teams laid out their plans for the day.  There was nothing exceptional and no reason for me to question the teams on the exact details of any of the events.  In fact, we were hosting some Army Aviation personnel who were conducting some tests with the Navy’s Special Boat Squadron and their development folks down in Panama City.  It was not our test, and we had no oversight.  We were there to help coordinate test range issues, base operating issues and otherwise provide administrative support to the Army.

At about 11 am I broke for lunch and went for a bike ride.  I arrived back in the squadron around 12:30 and was met by the team helping coordinate the Army test.  I suspected things would get interesting when they greeted me with “Sir, we need to talk!”  We headed into my office and closed the door.

Tech Sergeant Smith began.  “Sir, we’ve just received reports that the Army and Navy test that was going on today had an accident.” I stop him at this point to ask if there were any injuries or fatalities.  Thankfully the answer was no.  There was some damage to the MH-47, and the sub they were transporting had been dropped into the Gulf.  Sergeant Smith goes on.  “Recovery operations are underway for the sub and the MH-47 has recovered to Hurlburt and their agency leadership has been notified.  We’ve notified our higher headquarters and all necessary reporting has been done.”  At this point I interrupt and realize that since I’d not reviewed the Army’s test plan I didn’t really know what they were doing today so I ask Sergeant Smith to bring me up to speed.

“Well Sir, the plan was to launch from here, fly down to Panama City, meet up with the Navy and do some sling load testing of the new swimmer delivery vehicle they had developed.  Everything was going according to plan until they were out over the Gulf and had the mini-sub slung under the -47.  When the helo began a turn the sub started to put slack into the line and was turning inside the helicopter.  The guy monitoring the line didn’t react quickly enough and the sub hit the helicopter just about the time the helicopter jettisoned the sling.  The sub then fell into the Gulf and we think it’s in about 200’ of water.  They are out looking for it right now.”

Lessons learned:  Subs can fly, perhaps better than helicopters.  If you don’t think something is possible, you’ve probably not thought through all the possibilities.

Post script:  No one was hurt, they found and recovered the swimmer delivery vehicle,  and at least two pilots have the ability to tell people about their mid-air collision with a submarine and how it wasn’t their fault.

There is No Turning Back

I can remember laying on the living room couch on a Saturday morning, waiting for the sun to come up, and the television stations to come on. I would wish, oh wouldn’t it be nice if TV were on all night? I would switch between WABC, WNBC, WCBS and WPIX and wish, wouldn’t it be nice to have more channels?  Well now my wishes have come true, and I find myself wishing they hadn’t.

But now I realize it has always been in my control. I choose what to watch, and I choose when to watch.  Life is always about the decisions and choices you make. Sometimes those choices are necessary and good, other times they are hastily made and regretted. But they are always there and once made must be faced.

Decisions in leadership and government are much the same way.  Only very rarely is a decision made with the intent purpose of hurting someone. For example, when the hysteria of Japanese invasion ran through the West Coast and the Nation’s Capital, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 and took away the civil liberties of 117,000 citizens of Japanese decent.  Of course it was argued at the time that this was for their own protection from the outraged Americans of European and African descent, but the irony of this rationalization is captured in this quote from one of the internees, "If we were put there for our protection, why were the guns at the guard towers pointed inward, instead of outward?"[i]

For those who believe the best way to affect the evolution of society to match their personal vision, and who favor an ever-increasing role of a Government leadership isolated and buffered within the confines of the Interstate 495 Beltway, I would offer the previous example of abuse as a cautionary tale.  Today we condemn the bankers, Wall Street brokers, and large corporations because of their influence and distain for the average worker, but we have allowed the condemnation to shape the discussion into simple one of party politics.

We have allowed those who would control the debate to shape the language in such a way that any disagreement with the agenda is viewed as “racist,” “intolerant,” or just plain “trolling.”

The choice of our future is in our collective hands, do we continue as we have, or do we alter the course?

---

[i] https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation/

We Hold These Truths

     In the hot summer of 1776 men from the 13 colonies came together to determine a course of action for this nation.  They were not of one mind, but all carried some grievance with the motherland, her sovereign and his government. After considerable debate, discussion, argument, and more than a few pints of ale they reached agreement on that course.  It was a decision that would turn the world upon its head.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote the draft, but John Adams and Benjamin Franklin made significant edits.  The oft repeated and perhaps the most important sentences of the document are found in the second paragraph.

“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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    There are hundreds of histories, biographies and pieces of fiction written about that first Continental Congress; I will not presume to equal any of these published works either in research or writing.  But from my humble perspective I would like to reflect on the shift in our society that calls into question the fundamental basis for our government and ask a few simple questions.

    Today there seems to be a focus on the equality of man, as if this should be universally accepted.  Clearly the author of the declaration, himself a slave owner, used the terms with specific purpose.  We seem to forget its use was attacking the divine right of kings held as a sacred right by the King of England.  It came into vogue during the Protestant Reformation when the English monarch sought to resist the authority of the Catholic Church.

Jefferson and the Congress put forth the then radical idea that all men had certain rights that were not bestowed by a king or the government, and these rights could therefore not be taken away by government, but should and must be safeguarded if a government was to serve the people.  It established, perhaps for the first time, that government’s purpose was to serve the citizens, not the other way around.  This paragraph served as the preamble to the list of grievances the Congress would lay out in its declaration.
    Since then we’ve experienced a civil war as part of the nation attempted to dissolve the government to meet their political desires, and the other part resisted that effort with force.  The government has grown from a small organization where the majority of the effort was defense, to one that is increasingly involved in all aspects of our individual lives.  From telling us what the weather will be, to ensuring our toothpaste really whitens and brightens.  We spend billions and billions on new weapons -- because we can, and we celebrate politicians who promise to spend more of our money because they can.  We hold no one in government leadership personally accountable for scandal, but condemn those who would seek change.

    Here we are some 239 years later and the questions looms large for much of the population.  Does the increasing centralized government continue to serve to secure the rights of the individual?  As religious and civil intolerance increases does this form of republican representation still secure the blessing of liberty and provide for the inalienable rights recognized by our founders?  When political gain or loss is the primary consideration in most discussions is there hope for understanding and compassion?

Politically Correct

We are being told that Politically Correct speech is about being respectful of others.  It isn’t.  It is about controlling the dialogue and debate.[1]  It was originated by academics to begin the indoctrination of their students, and is fostered by those who seek to control and cower the population.

---

[1] http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

We are well on the Way to Insanity

    The Internet is at times both frustrating and hilarious, and Facebook^® in particular is the best example of the nonsensical nature of man. 

As almost anyone who pays the least amount of attention to the news should be aware there is a firestorm swirling around a Kentucky County clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.  She has claimed this right due to her religious beliefs, and of course those who oppose gay marriage have rushed to her defense.  These guardians of religious freedom include a number of GOP Presidential and political candidates.

At the same time she has been condemned and vilified by those who support the Supreme Court granted right, including of course the Democratic Presidential and political candidates.

What leads to this blog is a Facebook^® post someone had with a quote attributed to George Takei.

“Well this is a bit of a circus.  So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated. She broke her oath to uphold the constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married.  She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others.  If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple would people cheer her?  Would presidential candidates flock to her side?  In our society we obey civil laws, not religious ones.  To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American.”

    

    Just a couple of points for Mr. Takei and his friends.  The Kentucky oath of office does not obligate the clerk to uphold the US Constitution.  Despite the claims of Daily Kos and lgbtqnation the oath for the clerk is found in state law, not the Kentucky Constitution.  Section 30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputy actually says:

 "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

So on the first point, the clerk’s oath does not direct her to uphold the US Constitution or even the Constitution of the State, it does establish a requirement to be a good clerk and execute her duties without favor, affection or partiality.  That said, the judicial branch was well within its right to hold the clerk in contempt for not following the guidance of the US Supreme Court as it bestowed on the LGBT community the protections of the 14^th Amendment.

A second point for Mr. Takei… where was the outrage when the Federal Government’s Executive branch chose not to uphold the mandates of the US Constitution and fulfill its obligation to defend the laws of the nation?  You may recall the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton and whose defense was the responsibility of the Attorney General.  Do you remember when the President and the AG chose not to fulfill their obligation?  Where was the outrage then?  

Of course they were choosing to ignore their obligation in a way you were happy support. If it is un-American to follow your religious convictions you must obey civil law then were is the condemnation of the Islamic insistence on Shia Law, or the condemnation of those who choose to ignore their constitutional duty and uphold the civil law of the land despite their political disagreement? 

So at the end of the day the sanctimonious nonsense that she is imposing her religious views is no different then the President and Attorney General imposing their political view in choosing which laws to enforce or defend.  You can’t condemn one without condemning the other.