Flight

From time immemorial the idea that man should fly has been with us.  Unfortunately, the earliest technology did not make for long and sustained flight.  The attempts lasted only long enough to reach the site of the crash.  From Daedalus, and his son Icarus, through Leonardo DiVinci, past the Montgolfiers, past Lilienthal and Langley, until we find two brothers name Wright the ability for controlled flight escaped mankind.

What Orville and Wilbur discovered was it took three things for flight.  The first was the ability to control the craft on the three axis we call pitch (up and down from centerline), roll (rotation around the centerline), and yaw (angular movement left and right of centerline), the second was an engine powerful enough to propel the craft with sufficient speed to overcome the force of gravity, and the third and most important was the skill to manage the first two. 

They learned pretty quickly after those first flights at Kitty Hawk that flying was not as simple as stepping into the craft, starting it up, and taking off.  It took discipline, understanding and practice.  And as with most things in the human experience time has taught us some are better at flying than others.

In the course of sixty or so years man went from the efforts of Orville and Wilbur to get a few feet off the earth, to settling a craft on the moon.  We went from walking speeds to escape velocity.  We built aircraft with increasing complexity and size such that we could carry the entire Wright Family, along with their flyer, across the ocean in a few hours if we chose.

In the following fifty years we have refined some things, but flight has become so common place it no longer holds our collective fascination as it once did.  That is a shame, for there is much we have missed.

In The Company of Heroes

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a hero as “a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.”  We go through our lives surrounded by men and women who are really strangers to us, some we know, some we know of, and others are shadows whose names are known but to a few.  We call these men and women heroes for some deed, accomplishment, or perhaps simply for the fact they have survived. Each had the courage to do what was necessary when the time came.  They put their training, their skill, and oft times their life on the line to help their fellow man.

The entertainment industry, including the news outlets, throw the term hero around a lot, and in so doing dilute the nature of those who have the courage to do the right thing, at the right time, in the face of incredible pressures of self-preservation.

I was fortunate last evening to join a group of men and women who have displayed courage in defense of our nation.  Men who’ve jumped into places with little hope of getting out, and women who’ve taken their aircraft into harm’s way to save the lives of others being attacked by numerically superior forces.  They share a common trait, they move towards the sounds of conflict.  They place themselves between danger and those they love.

As inspiring as the evening was, it reminded me this nation is built on the strength of our citizens and their courage to face the threats this nation must face.  It isn’t just the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman that do this, it is everyone who stands up to tyranny, oppression, and intimidation.  There are times the courage displayed is not understood by the masses, and the hero must remain strong despite the condemnations. I think of Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela as examples of individuals with the moral courage to fight oppression and who triumphed in the end. 

Consider the courage it takes to stand against the government to stop a pipeline that threatens the rights of a people who’ve been long betrayed by the government, or for that matter, the courage to oppose the majority when you believe there is something wrong.  When we fail to understand the courage inside us all, we diminish ourselves and our nation.  When we condemn, without consideration, those who protest against blind obedience we reduce the strength that has made America a beacon of hope.

Last night I dined with heroes, and was reminded of the courage we each must have in these troubling times for the nation and the world.

In This Time

I am struck by the hypocrisy, or more precisely, the outrageous degree of hypocrisy the two main political parties, and their leading politicians exhibit in not only this presidential campaign, but in all the bombastic political talk that inundates us on a daily basis.  There is a quotation, oft attributed to Alexis de Toqueville[i], but perhaps coming from Joseph de Maistre’s[ii] Lettres et Opuscules Inédites vol 1 letter 53[iii], that said “In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.”  If this is true then it follows that we the citizens have brought on ourselves these campaigns filled with sexual accusations, political corruption, base name calling, accusations of racism, and other personal attacks.

One has only to spend a few moments on the social media so popular today (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, or others I never see) to recognize that we, as individuals, have come to accept the basest level of conversation when dealing with strangers or even friends.  The moral outrage of the opinion media, politicians (and their wives), and all the celebrities they can muster over the language and views of Donald Trump means nothing when they accept that same language on a daily basis in the entertainment industry, becasue those entertainers can be used to help further their political agenda.

Let’s talk about news and opinion journalists for just a moment.  I used to believe  journalists were impartial, and would dig into stories to uncover the truth, and while a newspaper would support a particular party or agenda, there was always an off-setting paper to show the other side.  In today’s world that construct has disappeared.  It has become obvious that the mainstream broadcast media of ABCNNBCBS is totally on board with the Democratic party and will do whatever they can to vilify the opposition and protect their own politicians.  There is a sense of elitism and distain for anyone who does not share their urban sense of propriety as we see in the accusations of racism and stupidity they assign to the average citizen.  Yet we continue to support this cartel in viewing their products. Today outsiders to the ABCNNBCBS cartel are the ones digging up the alternative explanations and hidden facts, which of course they condemn when it runs counter to their preferred narrative (e.g. Glen Greenwald and the exposé on global surveillance).  Or you can look at the time they spend talking about one candidate’s faults versus the others, or even the mere mention of alternative candidates, so just concede those we look to for honest reporting are hacks for one party and move on.

Then we come to our culture as a general baseline for morality.  If we glamorize violence in film, song and games, why are we shocked when it appears in the behavior or our young? Are we so blind as to not see the cause-effect relationships we have created?  When movies first came out, and began their wide appeal of bringing fantasy to the masses, we saw the distinctions between life and fantasy.  We taught our young in home, church and school how to be responsible within the confines of society and the movies they spent their nickels on at the Sunday matinee reinforced the concepts of good and evil.  Roy Rogers or Gene Autry were the good guys; they wore the white hats.  They didn’t shoot first and always saved the day.  The violence was limited, and the gun fights were vague enough not to traumatize the viewers.   Can we say that today where in an action move of 2 hours we can expect 90 minutes of non-stop violence?  Where a bad guy can shoot a thousand rounds and the good guy isn’t hurt because the couch stopped the bullets?  I find the celebrities (actors, directors, producers and companies) who profit from these movies, but then come out to condemn gun ownership to be among the biggest hypocrites we see today, and the purest puppets of the elite who use them.
 

In three weeks about 60% of the eligible voters will go to the polls to cast their ballot.  In some areas a few dead people will vote as well, but I don’t think they will be swing the election, but with the Clinton's you never know.  However the vote goes we will get the government we deserve.  We have, for the past 20 years encouraged ad hominem attacks of those we disagree with, we believe one party is evil and the other is righteous, we cast aside respectable behavior for political spectacle, and degrade the value of human life through performance, science, and social standards, and through it all both the leading candidates have been there.  One on reality TV the other on reality Politics.

---

[i] French diplomat and historian who travel the United States in the first half of the 19^th century.  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

[ii] French philosopher and diplomat.  Maistre claimed it was the rationalist rejection of Christianity that was responsible for the disorder following the French Revolution. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre

[iii] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081021103757AAbfmpx

It is a Simple Idea

From Shakespeare’s Hamlet we have this advice from Polonius to his son, Laertes.

Polonius:

This above all; to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!                       Hamlet Act 1, scene 3

Polonius, like most fathers, was a bit pompous and long winded, and his son Laertes was about to sail to France for some peace and quiet.  In his ramblings Polonius offers other advice as well, like “never a lender or borrower be” or “be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar” or “Give thy thoughts no tongue.” All good ideas, but I digress. 

So what was Polonius trying to say to his son?  The popular new age view has this meaning that we should value ourselves and our self-esteem above all else.  Since Shakespeare is not a new age kind of guy is there some other meaning here?  The Dad in me says yea, verily tis so.

I share the view, as others have discussed[i], that what Dad is trying to say is to understand both the negative and positive of a choice, and balance your own interests against the influences that others may offer, putting first those things you value above those of the crowd.

This Presidential election makes this advice more important than at almost any time within recent memory, and perhaps my life time.  Both sides are making arguments about what is best for the country, and what her or his opponent will do to destroy the country if elected.  What we have seen in past campaigns is the rhetoric, the promises or the slanders, are never kept or fully realized, and if they were the country still goes on.  Perhaps diminished, but it goes on.  All we as individuals can do is be true to the values we believe to be right and just, and hope those around us share similar values. 

For me the most important question to ask is does he or she honestly share your personal values?  Things like not voting for him will assure a win for her, or who will fill the next Associate Justice position are outside my control.  What I can do is be honest with myself and consistent in keeping my values as important.

I suspect far more people have already decided how they will vote than the polls indicate, I know I have.  If you are truly undecided I suggest you spend a few moments in reflection and prayer to consider what your personal values are, and how important they are to you, and vote accordingly.

---

[i] http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/thine-own-self-true

Ghost Towns

Communities seem to have lives, just like the people who make them.  Some towns seem to rise up out of nowhere, flourish with a vibrancy and life that is both robust and exuberant, and then just as fast as they came into being they disappear.  The west is filled with these “ghost towns” that grew up from some industry, like mining, and when the industry died out so did the towns.

In reading the posts about Hyde Park I am struck by the similarities of the western mining towns to my hometown.  At its height it was filled with the rich and famous, growing from its farming roots, it became a summer playground for rich, then an international political center as the home, and summer residence, of the President. 

It saw Kings and Queens come for visits.  It had its own train stop on the tracks along the Hudson.  It was inevitable that would end at some point.  The President died, and his wife Eleanor retired to her cottage at Val-Kill, but because of her fame and influence, the town continued to thrive.

In the 1950s through probably 1990 the life of the town ebbed and flowed as farms flourished, and the county’s number one business, International Business Machines, grew to employ thousands of people in the towns surrounding its headquarters, plants, and research centers scattered around Dutchess and the adjacent counties.  The service industries like restaurants, drug stores, supermarkets, gas stations, and retail stores all flourished.  In the 1960s, the city center in Poughkeepsie was alive with shoppers going to the department stores and retail shops that made up the main street.

In the latter half of 60’s and early 70’s, we saw the advent of the shopping centers and malls, with most of that going to the lands south of Poughkeepsie, for that was where the big employer was located, and it made financial sense to be convenient to your customers.  It was then that Hyde Park seemed to begin its transition to the bedroom community it is today.  A place where people come to sleep, but work is somewhere else, perhaps somewhere far away like the New York City.

In the 90’s IBM began its fall from greatness.  Its failure to understand the radical shift in office automation, the changing landscape of computing, and the enormous management bureaucracy it had built, doomed its ability to respond quickly to the exploding advancement of circuit technology as foretold by Gordon Moore, and they gave way to the more agile companies of what is now known as Silicon Valley.

I left the town in the early 70s to join the Air Force.  So I wonder, what will change the Hyde Park of today to bring back the town it once was or is its continued decline to a shadow of glories past inevitable?

Reasoning, For or Against

There is much in the news about the Republican candidate for President, and there has been much in the news about the Democrat’s candidate for President.  There have even been occasional snippets in the news for or against the Libertarian’s candidate.  Let me see if I can summarize the pros and cons to come up with a best choice.

Candidate	Strengths	Weaknesses	Other Factors
Hillary “I know nothing about technology” Clinton (Democrat)	1.    Been in politics a long time 2.   Knows a lot of liberal benefactors 3.   Knows how to lie to the American public 4.   Rich and knows how to link contributions to political favors 5.   Knows how to use aides to do heavy lifting (i.e. take out enemies) 6.   Puts the needs of the Party just slightly behind her personal needs 7.   Is comfortable living in the isolation of the beltway and avoiding contact with working Americans except for photo ops.	·     Major Accomplishment is “been in politics a long time” ·     Health is uncertain (see strength #3) ·     Positions on major issues tend to change (see strength #4) ·     Does not believe in accepting personal ownership of mistakes (see strength #5) ·     Has a VP partner who is an a$$wipe, and who promises to be her right hand person	Wants to reshape America to eliminate an independent middle class Will, in all likelihood, continue the Obama definition of “Transparency” and “open government” Will, in all likelihood, extend the use of DOJ, DOHS, DHHS, and Treasury as political tools to maintain control of opponents With her history of destroying records her requirements for a post-presidential library should be pretty small and may be able to add a room to the Clinton Library in Arkansas
Donald “I have a big mouth” Trump (Republican)	1.   Has been a major donor to political campaigns 2.  Will say anything, often without benefit of judgement 3.  Is not a career politician, although he says he has paid for some? 4.  Claims to comb his own hair 5.  Is rich 6.  Has alienated a great number of Republicans 7.  Appeals to a great number of dissatisfied middle class voters 8.  Promises to turn down the PC rhetoric 9.  Has a VP partner who appears sane	·     Has the thinnest skin of any presidential candidate since Aaron Burr ·     Absolutely no concept of decorum or civil decency ·     Can’t spell PC ·     With history of Chapter 11 bankruptcy he could declare America bankrupt and file for Chapter 11 protections (which would upset the Chinese and the Saudi governments)	If elected a number of Hollywood properties would go on the real estate market as liberal stars flee to Canada Entire term -- the nation and the world would be wondering what next?
Gary “Isn’t Aleppo a dog food?” Johnson (Libertarian)	1.   From New Mexico 2.  Supports legalization of Cannabis 3.  Isn’t Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump 4.  Not Married (girlfriend would have to fill in as first lady)	·     Can’t name another world leader ·     Doesn’t know where Aleppo is ·     Not sure how many states are in the US.	If on Star Trek he would be wearing a red shirt What would WH kitchen stock for those late night munchies?

Respect for the Law

glasspatternsource.com

“Equal Justice Under Law”[i] is etched into the main entrance of the United States Supreme court.  It is also the foundation of the Republic, the ideal this nation was founded and built upon.  It is the unobtainable we, at one point, strove for and its erosion is now the reason we see so many cracks in the institution we call the United States of America.

Just as a river erodes the land, we see the abuse of the ideal of equality under the law eroding the average citizens’ belief in the legitimacy of our government. One can argue, as many have, we have never met this ideal.  That is most certainly true.  We have only to look at our history to know this. From our declaration in 1776, past our first experiment in self-government, through the creation of our current constitution and its several amendments we have treated some with deference and others with disdain, but the ideal was there and enough Americans believed our government would strive to see that ideal become a reality that the transgressions were, for the most part, overlooked.

Today I am not so sure that remains true.  In years past the most egregious of discrimination could be quietly masked from the general population.  Today they are not, and because of the various agendas they are all put on display before us on a daily basis.  The hypocrisies of the politicians are evidenced there as well. In combination they are raising a question I never thought I would hear, is our government still, as Abraham Lincoln said, [a] “government of the people, by the people, for the people”[ii] or has the preferential justice given to the rich or politically connected become so blatant as to create a doubt in the majority of the nation?

Those who wonder how Mr. Trump could become a viable candidate, and quite possibly the next President, do not seem to understand how or why he is so attractive to so many.  I submit it is precisely because the majority of our nation has begun to lose confidence we can expect equal justice under the law and our respect for this principle is significantly declining that leads to the popularity of such a candidate.  I offer the following as food for thought.

African-Americans have historically received unequal justice.  It really doesn’t matter what part of the country we are talking about, and although the south is always held out as an example, the truth is the northern, mid-western and western states have also discriminated in their sentencing.  The civil rights movement of the 1960s became the high point of their fight for equality, but in parallel there were much more militant elements seeking to overthrow the system.  They were held down by the weight of the government, but they’ve never gone away.  I believe you can better trace the evolution of the black lives matter movement not to Reverend King, but to Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale.[iii]

Respect for Life.  As a society we have historically had to balance the rights of one against the rights of the many.  In that balancing we have always had the recourse to appeal a popular political or legal decision up to the highest court to seek the protection for the one.  In its landmark decision of 1973 in Roe v Wade, the court chose to not protect the needs of the one, instead they deferred the decision on life to the medical community, and therein created a life taking industry and a political conflict that rages to this day.  You can argue when life begins, but medical science advances almost daily to the point a fetus is viable almost at conception.  This conflict is only exasperated as the language of the two positions becomes more strident and the political parties fight for political gain.

The abuse of political power for personal and political gain.  As the average American watches the news he or she is inundated with scandal after alleged scandal with corporation presidents being charged by the government for corruption or wrong doing and at the end of the day having their shareholders pay the fine while they collect huge bonus.  Or we see how the executive branch departments have been politicized to target political opposition or absolve favored politicians from criminal wrong-doing.  Each event may have only a mild effect, but I am reminded that the Grand Canyon began with a trickle of the Colorado river.  The same is true for the erosion of our confidence in the expectation of equal justice under the law, and our respect for the law creators, enforcers, and administrators.

---

[i] https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

[ii] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party