Is Space Really the Final Frontier?

The opening line to Star Trek seems a good place to start as we consider our future.  The hopes and humanity depicted by Gene Rodenberry in his 1960s classic, and the franchise that followed is inspiring.  In his model of the Federation he shows the alpha life forms of a whole variety of planets working together for the greater good, but! 

For a story to be interesting it needs to have characters in conflict, for without some form of conflict where is the interest?  Just like the old westerns, there are the good guys, bad guys, and a reason for them to be at odds with each other.  Star Trek followed this classic format just like all great stories.  But life does not usually mirror art, so I have to wonder will we arrive at a point in our humanity where we emulate the grandness of the Federation?  Where we are always the good guys and the distinction between good and evil is simple and clear-cut.

There are those who see a unified earth with a benevolent central government seeking what is best for all humankind.  They are the same people who thought European nationalism led to the conflicts of the great world wars.  At the same time, there are those who look at the darker nature of humankind and see the almost unlimited power such an organization would have as being incredibly dangerous to the rights of an individual.  Those who argue for a strong world government are the same progressive visionaries who set out to create that organization, and thus end what they viewed as a central cause of war, namely the nationalism that led to empire building in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  After the first World War and then again after the second they created first with the League of Nations and then with the United Nations, a building block to end the rush to war, but something has gone awry. 

War has not ended, and at least for me, it is still next to impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys here on our little planet.  The good guys and bad guys are all a matter of perspective.  Didn’t the Klingons view themselves as the good guys, ultimately siding with the Federation as they battled those other bad guys the Romulans?

We see in the liberal-progressive movement the supposedly grand ideas about the better nature of mankind, but also a deep intolerance to anyone who doesn’t buy into those ideas.  (It is almost as if all the liberals suffer from the same human failings as those wayward conservatives.)  At the heart of the approach is how a government is responsible for the making life great for those who can’t make their own lives great.  It is, in a funny kind of way, interesting the historical definition of liberal has been altered to reflect the current intolerance to competing approaches to government.

In all the discussion of bigger government what I never see is an answer on how large it will need to be to overcome the human frailties of intolerance, self-interest, racism, and greed.  Nor do I see any discussion (other than tax the rich) on where the funds for this endeavor will really come from.  By the way, how much did it cost the Federation to create its fleet of starships to defend the empire?  Who actually bore the cost of that endeavor?  In the telling of Star Trek, I don’t think Gene actually laid out the financial structure that made money obsolete, but certainly not all planets were created equal from a natural resource standpoint, were they?  Were all those other “unnamed” members of the Federation expected to ante up the same amount as Earth, after all, we got to be in charge and only a few of them got to serve on the Federation starships?  Obviously, they had their own vessels but you never see them called to save the outposts near the neutral zone, do you? 

In looking at the society we’ve become -- I wonder if we are taking our ideas of society from the fictional stories we’ve grown up watching.  When we take our ideas of social utopia from fiction I wonder how much of human nature we are willing to ignore before it all comes crashing down from the reality of that nature?  After all, Karl Marx saw a worker’s paradise in the form of Communism, but the reality of the Soviet Union presented a far bleaker life for almost everyone not at the top of the political food chain.

There Must Be an Option

As I consider the problems we face in our society a single question always comes up.  What are the options to fix them?  There are always options, it is just that we frequently dismiss the unattractive or disagreeable.  It is always easier to blame others than consider the potential we are wrong, but that option is always available to those who think rationally about any issue.

In my professional life, I was an aerial navigator.  It was my job to guide an aircraft when there were only limited aids to establish a position and determine a course to arrive at the desired destination.  In that role, I always had to determine what options were available to me, and question whether I was making the right choices.  Failure to question myself, and double check my work could result in us not finding our way, missing our objective or landing safely.

Today, it seems as if most people are absolutely convinced of their moral superiority and the correctness of their positions.  I often wonder how many of them are really lost and only bluffing their way through the debate.  It reminds me of an old navigator joke.

A brand-new navigator is assigned to a crusty old pilot on a C-124 Globemaster cargo aircraft. They are planning to fly from the east coast to Europe.  This is the navigators first trip.   As they prepare to take the active runway the pilot pulls his 38-caliber pistol from the holster and lays it on the center throttle console.  The young navigator asks “what is that for?”  The pilot says, “it’s in case you get me lost.”  At that point, the navigator pulls his own pistol from his holster and lays it on the navigation table.  The pilot notices this and asks, “what’s that for?”  To which the navigator replies, “I’ll know we’re lost before you will.”

Today we have a two-party system.  It has served the nation reasonably well for these past 230(ish) years.  But what happens when the parties become so committed to the minority voices they can no longer hear the cries of the majority?  The basic premise the nation was founded on was the rights of the individual must be protected, but we have now reached a point where the vocal minorities are demanding the rights of the individual must be subservient to their political desires, and the two (main) political parties seem incapable of quieting the voices pulling them to the extreme positions.

I see a number of options on how this will ultimately play out, but I am not sure any of them offer a clear path back to the Republic I was taught to love and protect.

Beyond the Slippery Slope

I am saddened so many have done such a miserable job in understanding our society, fostering positive changes to it, and imparting an understanding of its core values to the younger generations.  Anyone who has been paying attention over the past 30 or so years has watched as step by step we have moved from a cooperative government to one where vilifying the opposition is far more important than achieving the foundational concepts of the Constitution that created our nation.

On July 4^th, 1776 representatives from the 13 colonies released the Declaration of Independence, formalizing our split from King George and forever altering our fortune.  With the uncertainty of success far greater than the knowledge of the outcome, we set out on the path to becoming our own nation.

After a shaky start with a confederation, representatives of the 13 states came together again in 1787 to create our Constitution.  It has served us so well for almost 230 years but is now under attack from those who’ve given little thought to anything other than their own desires.  We have created a non-communication stream where opinion has replaced information, where emotion has replaced reason, and where the population is forced to pick a side and suffer the consequences – as those in opposition to that side have now moved from ad hominin attacks to physical intimidation.

As I settle into this new community I’ve had several conversations with residents and in the course of one of them the issue of “self-discipline,” or the lack thereof, of the young came up.  It got me to thinking.  Where does the idea that a child should have self-discipline come from?  It seems to me it is hard to expect a child to understand the need to restrain their actions if the parents and teachers don’t impart the idea of consequences to personal choice as part of their training?  I grant that for every gross generalization there will be exceptions, but on the whole, if we don’t train our children in the rules of a society the collapse of that society would seem inevitable.

I wonder, is that failure on our part to train our children to understand that words and actions have consequences become a root cause of our problems?

We have reached a point in our society where we have politicians calling for their supporters to engage in violence, and there is no condemnation from their political allies.  We see celebrities call for the killing of political opponents and there is no outrage from their fans.  We have private citizens now assaulting other citizens simply because they don’t agree with their political statements, and we see businesses publicly humiliate patrons because they don’t like the President.  Each of these events, if taken in isolation, is bad enough but taken together it really causes me to wonder.  Have we reached a nexus, where society will begin to return to a civil approach or will we sink into anarchy as the two-party system collapses and the extreme elements are left to pick up the scraps?

T minus Two

We are at T minus two and counting.  On Tuesday, hopefully at 6 am CDT, we will pull out of our driveway heading to Kissimmee, Florida with about two tons of stuff we will self-deliver to our new home.  That afternoon, at 5 pm, we will do a final walk-through prior to signing the paperwork on Wednesday morning.  Over the following ten-days our lives will be in constant turmoil as we begin to settle into one new place but have to return to what has been our home for the last 25-years to finish the packing out and moving of all the stuff one accumulates over a lifetime.  That is a lot of stuff.

We will miss the friendships we’ve made, but thanks to modern communication and reasonable road conditions they will not be that far away.  We will have to adjust to a new home and new expectations.  Hopefully, we are not so old as to be unwilling and unable to do so.

Personally, I will miss the professional community of Air Force Special Operations whose values I have made my own and have hopefully made some small contribution to ensuring the next generation will not be faced with the choices we were when I was younger.

This move will be hardest on my wife, as her life is intertwined with the friendships she has made and the adaptations that must come with such a radical transition from what is comfortable to the unknown.

Wish us luck.

See you when I resume blogging sometime in July(ish).

It's a Question of Life and Death

This past week we’ve been informed of the suicides of a fashion designer and a renowned celebrity chef.  As reported in the news, Ms. Kate Spade and Mr. Anthony Bourdain took their lives - apparently hanging themselves.  This same week we are told Mr. Charles Krauthammer has decided to end his fight against an aggressive cancer and let it take his life.  The public outpourings that come with the news of celebrity deaths always give me reason to reflect and I would like to share those thoughts for a few paragraphs.

In the cases of suicide there is, of course, the tributes to a life well lived, and the distress over the individual’s decision to end that life before reaching so natural end.  We see public service announcements about suicide prevention helplines, discussion on how depression is a hidden illness and how there is always hope and we should reach out to check on people to make sure they aren’t about to kill themselves.  These are all admirable things, but when do we ask ourselves the tough question of why suicide is becoming such an epidemic choice in America.  According to the Foundation for Suicide Prevention[1], it is currently the 10^th largest cause of death in America and the NY Times[2] reports rates have reached a 30-year high.  The data suggests close to 45,000 people will take their life this year.  To put that into perspective school violence from guns will account for maybe a hundred deaths each year in school shootings.

Don’t get me wrong, one death is too many in school violence, but the focus of the media seems to be proportionately misplaced as they become outraged over this but say little about the choices that affect 225% more lives.  Casting the media frenzy aside what is it about our society that has caused the suicide rates to go up as they have? 

I believe suicide has always been part of the human condition.   The Eastern faiths and societies view the act as one of courage.  For example, it is well known that traditional Japanese society specific forms of suicide were/are vital if one was to maintain their honor. For years those who touted the quality of Japanese educational standards would gloss over the fact suicide was a leading cause of death for teens[3]. Was poor performance in school the causal factor?

In the middle east and the western world, we see Muslims far too often choose to use their suicides as weapons to kill and maim those who they’ve been taught to hate, with the promise of a greater reward in heaven.  We vilify these acts, but does that have an impact on the next individual or group who seeks to inflict harm through the process of self-sacrifice?  I suspect not.

Western culture has attempted to reduce the allure of suicide through the church teachings.  Church leaders tell the faithful it is a sin, or that it will have long-term repercussions for their souls.  But then there are more extreme faiths (or cults) that have actually encouraged the taking of your own life to reach a higher reward.  It seems to me the moral restraint against the taking of your life is quickly losing its hold on our Judeo-Christian society, but why?

I think there are a number of reasons.  Some may have to do with a loss of the influence of faith, but most of it has to do with the changes we’ve brought forward that gradually erodes the restraint we previously held.  Within my lifetime we have become a culture where self-inflicted death is a practical choice for anyone who chooses it.  We’ve made the taking of unborn life a right that is fought for and defended by those who believe women (and occasionally men) should be unencumbered by their sexual choices. 

We are now beginning to make a choice patient-doctor termination is a preferred option for those who are diagnosed with terminal illness.  Currently, there are seven states with statutes allowing physician-assisted suicide, they are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington[4].  Finally, with a few celebrity exceptions, we rarely report on the daily toll of people who’ve found death a preferred option to the life ahead of them.  I imagine that number will only increase as the moral view of suicide in our country continues to evolve.

There are those who cite an increase in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, (PTSD) but haven’t those conditions always existed?  The only thing that has changed is we now have names approved by the National Institute of Mental Health. There are statements by many (perhaps expert/perhaps not) that the younger generations are more “fragile” than the older generations.  Personally, I don’t hold this to be true.  What we have are medical experts that believe they can correctly diagnose the mental states of individuals with the expectation they can make those individuals different, either through medication or therapy.  So now it is far more prevalent to suggest someone who deviates from the norm has an abnormal condition and should seek medical help, but what is normal in a society that is evolving to encourage people that death is okay?

---

[1] https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

[3] https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/stories/the-mystery-behind-japans-high-suicide-rates-among-kids/

[4] https://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/death-with-dignity-laws-by-state.html

Modern Life

"What We Have Here is Failure to Communicate"

A classic line from the movie Cool Hand Luke, delivered by Strother Martin as the warden of the prison camp Paul Newman is sent to.  How apropos to the world of today?  It seems everywhere we turn people are talking at or past each other, that is when they do talk.  More frequently each day we are turning to words, or parts of words, or acronyms or emojis to interact with the world around us.  How long will it be before we stop completely and just wait for Alexa or his friends to read our minds and take over? 

I used the male gender for Alexa because I asked him to self-identify as a man.  He does that so my wife won’t get jealous.

Enjoy Strother Martin’s scene.  

 

There Must Be a Pill for That

There Must Be a New Pill.

What is up with Vitamin D?  For years milk has claimed to have vitamin D and we were told that playing outside in the sun would give us vitamin D and that was the last we ever heard of it.  Then along came daily vitamins and since we were moving indoors to avoid the sun that would seem to work out, but no one ever explained why you needed vitamin D, it was just part of that whole vitamin alphabet.

Now I can’t seem to read a paper or scan the internet without being bombarded with the necessity of vitamin D.  If you don’t have enough dementia sets in, or you have miscarriages, or one arm may fall off. 

On the annual health screenings now in addition to cholesterol, they are checking your “D” levels.  Too much and you are told to stand in a closet, too little and you have to take a supplement since the negatives of the sun are so bad.

As if worrying about why so many Philadelphia Eagles didn’t want to go to the White House and get their picture taken, or why President Trump disinvited them, or why whoever wins the NBA championship will stay home, now I have to have a Vitamin D dipstick that I have to check every six months.

I think it is a conspiracy between the supplement industry and the FAA, with the FDC caught in the middle.  BTW, did the FAA really make a conscious choice to hire the least qualified candidates to boost its gender, sexual, and non-binary status ratings?  Yeah -- Flight Safety.

I bet vitamin D would fix that!