Pancho has the variety of answers.
June 9, 2004
Why did the Chicken cross the Iraqi road……?
Comments Off on Why did the Chicken cross the Iraqi road……?
June 8, 2004
Cultural Archeology
The Science Channel just concluded a feature on pyramids. They talked about those in Egypt and Mexico, as well as newer ones in Las Vegas and Idaho. What caught my interest was how people use history.
For centuries the archeological community have been convinced the pyramids in Giza were built using slave labor. Consensus was that these slaves were primarily Hebrews from Judea. Today, Egyptian archeologists are convinced these structures were built by Egyptians working as conscripts or as paid laborers serving their pharaoh.
The people studying the Mayan and Aztec pyramids are pleased that locals in the area take great pride in these edifices. “The faces in stone carvings look just like them.”
I am always interested in how people look to the past to define their present. It is a human trait, I guess. We want to tie our fate to something that happened long ago.
My first thoughts were of cultural biases. Did archeologists digging near Cairo lean heavily on biblical tales to determine who built the pyramids? Do Egyptian archeologists ignore historical fact in order to avoid the unpleasant reality that “Jews” built the pyramids? I don’t have an answer. Nor can I answer why something done thousands of years ago has any bearing on today. Whoever built the pyramids did something phenomenal. Whether they were Egyptian or Hebrew is irrelevant. They were human beings, and these are monuments to the ability of man to do something…monumental. The skill and knowledge of the builders was not passed along through genes. The ability to acquire that knowledge was. And that knowledge was gained, as it is now, through effort and training. It wasn’t implanted by magic or breeding. Just because someone could accomplish such a thing doesn’t mean his progeny could. And it certainly has nothing to do with the abilities of descendants hundreds of generations later.
My great grandfather was a German Jew. I am neither. Another was half Apache. I’m not. I’m an engineer. None of my children are. And I can’t trace my ancestry beyond five generations, nor do I want to. Any person I become is due to choices I make, and opportunities I take advantage of. My personality is an amalgam of people I’ve known and loved, and the values I learned from family and friends.
Then again, maybe my ancestor designed the Great Pyramid. I should look in the attic for a deed.
*****UPDATE*****
I have to point readers to a post at La Shawn’s regarding Afrocentrism. It falls right in line with what I mean.
Internationalism
People forget that Lenin’s and Stalin’s vision was a single world entity ruled by the Communist Party. The Communist Party. Stalin was forced to abandon the mission for a short time in order to fight for survival. Abandoning the internationalist movement out of necessity, he authorized production and release of Alexander Nevsky to rally all Russians against the threat. Realistically, the fight between fascism and socialism was a battle between brothers. The only difference between Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany was the sense of nationalism in the National Socialist Party.
Stalin was quick to reinstate internationalism after the war was over. Communism was supposed to unite the world. Internationalism was a synonym for that unity.
Today, the Democratic Party have made it quite clear they are interested in internationalism, and the Party is all-important. For that reason, the person who becomes the candidate is irrelevant. The Party will rule, not the individual.
This Presidential election, those who live by the “internationalist” creed have come out of the closet. They sense a danger in Bush winning another election, because he is obviously not one of them. And they are intensely committed to preventing that.
I think the parallels with the Communist Party are obvious, and that concerns me. Terry McAuliffe is the titular head, or General Secretary, of the Democratic National Committee. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the joint Chairmen of the Committee. The Party is everything. The Nation is nothing. I know some will say Republicans share this view. I see some similarities as regards party unity, but the internationalism isn’t there. The United States and nationalism are more important to Republicans.
This is the conflict, and is embodied in the argument regarding patriotism. Both sides are sincere. Both are patriotic. Their definitions are different. Republicans see patriotism as being centered on the US. Democrats have come to see patriotism as being centered on the world community, or the UN.
And that is the choice this year. Kerry has made it clear he wishes to continue on the road toward a single world government. Bush has made it clear he sees the US as sovereign. The Democratic Party have made it clear wavering in this will not be tolerated. Ask Zell Miller. Ask Joe Lieberman.
At least they won’t be shot for voicing thoughts contrary to Party standards. Yet.
Comments Off on Internationalism
Jimmy Carter
What images does that name conjure in your mind? What was the basis of his Presidency? Can you remember anything about it?
Most people could probably recall the 444 day incarceration of some 50 Americans held captive by Iranian “students”. But what else do you remember of his single term as President of the United States?
I voted for Carter in 1976. I viewed him as a man of principle and intelligence. After all, he had graduated from the Naval Academy and was selected for nuclear submarine duty–one of the best of the best. In spite of the positive things Nixon had accomplished, I thought it was time to have his appointed successor, Gerald Ford, go home. We needed an outsider in Washington.
Carter came in with Human Rights as his mission. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm was matched by his naivet?. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to prop up a Communist government, Jimmy responded by preventing our Olympic athletes from competing in Moscow. I guess that showed those Commies! He gave the Panama Canal Zone to Panama, which upset many folks. What I remember most about it, though, was Mondale’s visit. We flew him around and he remarked, “You mean we’re giving all this to the Panamanians?” I wanted to ask if he had even bothered to read the treaty. When Carter visited, soldiers were required to attend his speeches because all the civilians refused.
Carter was equally adept at domestic policy. Tip O’Neill did as he liked in Congress, and pretty much let Jimmy know who was really in charge.
We then got Ronald Reagan. He was old, simple, and a former actor. But he had to be better than Carter. He was. A lot better.
Reagan was direct. When he spoke of human rights, he backed it with action. The Iran-Contra Scandal was all about human rights. Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president, decided what he really wanted was what Castro had in Cuba. The Contras were, well, contrary. Our Democrats in Congress liked Ortega (still do) and Reagan flanked them and provided arms to the Contras, who eventually restored democracy to Nicaragua.
Reagan confronted the Soviets, and people howled and protested as we put Pershing missiles in Europe. The Soviets collapsed. Human rights were restored in Eastern Europe.
Certain Democrats are now concerned Reagan’s death boosts Bush. There is some debate from both sides on the validity of that opinion. I think it might if people make the correct link.
Carter viewed human rights as a legal issue. Working within other nations’ legal systems would bring humanity to everyone in the world. Reagan saw it as a good vs. evil proposition. Evil must be confronted and destroyed for people to enjoy those rights inherent to all humanity.
Bill Clinton viewed terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Working with other nations’ legal systems would eventually bring terrorists to justice. Bush sees it as a good vs. evil proposition. Evil must be confronted and destroyed for people to enjoy those rights inherent to all humanity.
What concerns the left more than anything is that Americans might make this link. Not only would it destroy Kerry’s chances in November, it would land Bill Clinton’s legacy in the same dumpster as Jimmy Carter’s. I think the latter is a foregone conclusion. It remains for us to see what happens with the former.
*******UPDATE***********
I thought about this post as I drove home today. I’ve heard and read about some of the absolutely hateful things people have said about Reagan. I cannot believe any sane person would talk like that about someone who just died. I think little of Jimmy Carter. I believe he was probably the worst President of the 20th century. But he wasn’t mean-spirited. He was sincere in his beliefs. I doubt there would be more than a few on the very fringe who would say such things about him.
Clinton is always the one the left points to as an example of a President who has been treated unfairly. You are welcome to believe that, but his treatment pales in comparison to that endured by Bush, and now Reagan. And I would condemn anyone who derided him in this way on his death. Again, from the right there would be mostly silence.
Not so from the left. But it has more to do with Bush and this election than it does with Reagan. And it is because the two share common traits. Both were/are humble in their office. Carter was, too. But his humilty came across as a lack of confidence, similarly for Bush 41. Clinton had no humility. Nor did Nixon. Or Johnson.
We’ve come a long way from the time of Harry Truman, a Democrat who shared many of the same traits as both Bush and Reagan: respect for the office, a strong vision for the future through solving the problems of today, and a government that followed the Constitution.
Give ’em hell, Harry! And Ronnie, and George. Give ’em hell!
Open Letter
Here is an open letter from a Texas veteran, whose father and sons also served, to John Kerry. He pretty much covers territory I have in researching Kerry’s background.
Comments Off on Open Letter
San Antone
I am worn out today. I spent the last five days with #2 son and his lovely wife, and they have far more energy than I do.
My favorite cities in this country are Washington, Lexington, KY, Monterey, CA, Key West, and San Antonio. The kids wanted to go to SA this weekend, and I’m always ready to visit. But my knees can’t deal with the whirlwind tour we took: Alamo, Mercado, River Walk, all at a quick pace in one day. They enjoyed themselves, though, and we had a wonderful meal by the river before returning to Corpus Christi.
San Antonio is the second largest city in Texas (Houston is tops), yet I never feel like I’m in a big city when I’m there. It has lots of green space, and the town isn’t compacted. I always enjoy exploring the downtown areas of cities, and San Antonio has one of the best. You can walk anywhere, and the variety is such that you can buy anything from top quality art work to tourist junk. And the variety of restaurants is great. We had Italian the other day, but one of the best steak houses in the world is on the River Walk, as well as Mexican, German, seafood, and Starbucks.
I’ve stayed at the Menger Hotel, and had a few Shiners at the bar where Teddy Roosevelt signed up men for his excursion to Cuba. I’ve taken the carriage ride around town on a cool night in November when all the lights were glowing in anticipation of Christmas. And I’ve played golf.
For a military retiree, San Antonio offers quality golf courses at Fort Sam Houston (two), Lackland, Randolph, and Kelly Air Force Bases, and a nine-hole course at Brooks. And the city courses are well-maintained. Then there are dozens of resort and daily fee courses.
I always have a good time there. Wallace spent his hormonal college years in San Antonio, so he probably has a completely different view of the city!
June 7, 2004
Books update
Just updated my reading list. As an engineer, I’ve used statistics many times and in many ways. Always with an eye toward learning something from data, or figuring out why something acted the way it did. With some trepidation, I picked up How to Lie With Statistics. I worry about being influenced badly by what the book has to offer, but Sarah assures me it will be a good read.
Engineers use statistics differently than others, watching for anomolies that may carry more information than the rest of the more consistent data. While most people instinctively throw out data that don’t conform, engineers want to know why a piece of information differs. We would hope all data play nice, but that seldom happens.
Then again, I may learn a new way to baffle people with BS!
Comments Off on Books update