We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Today, Yahoo! asked if I am I better off than my parents? Do I have more opportunity and a better life overall? These are questions that politicians will be asking the next few months. They are questions pundits continually ask. But posing these questions doesn't really inform us.
Depending on how I define 'better off', I could reply yes or no to both questions. If all I did was pay attention to the broad statistics and ignore my personal situation, then no. I should join OWS and complain incessantly.
Am I earning more in real terms than my father at a similar age? No. I do have much more saved for retirement, but at my age my father was finishing putting two boys through college, and looking to pay for three more children. He had a larger home and a nicer car, and he went on some very nice vacations (sometimes with us, usually without). The problem is, no matter how well off he was, his life is not mine. I can't compare how well I'm doing to him, because we entered very different professions and made very different choices. Do I feel better off? Yes. Do I live very well? Yes. So whether I am better off or not is a vague question. It is not dependent purely on statistics. Answering the two original questions will beg other questions rather than providing a concrete response.
After all, we tend to have very short memories about our situations and how we've progressed.
Just minutes into last Monday afternoon's confab between Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich, I heard Newt say something really noteworthy and thought, Man, I should grab that clip for the post and jotted down the video time to snip it out later.
A few minutes after that, I heard another memorable quote and jotted down the time. Then another. Then-
At that point I realized the whole damn video was turning into a highlight reel. I realized that this wasn't a debate or a forum or even an in-depth discussion.
It was a seminar.
There quickly comes a point when you realize you've never heard anything quite like this before, and certainly not outside academia. It isn't just that both of these people are masters of the field of foreign policy, but they're both master tacticians, as well. You not only hear the what and why, but the how to, as well.
If Newt's the 'Big Picture' guy, Huntsman isn't far behind. His serving as Ambassador to China gave him a world view that none of the other candidates can touch save Gingrich. The extra dimension he provided to the affair is his in-depth knowledge on how to deal with this rising economic-military behemoth, while Gingrich does his usual superb job of keeping things in historical perspective.
When you have an hour and a half to spare sometime, give it a spin. The link is here. Click on the link over to the right to begin play.
This isn't something to be rushed through or watched in pieces. You'll see what I mean at the end. This is an event to be savored.
Started thinking about Christmas shopping yet? I began to think about thinking about it last night. At the Farm, the immediate blood-related BD family (my two parents with five kids, each with a very nice spouse, countless grandkids of all sizes) decided years ago to prohibit presents as an interference with just getting together for drinks, food, and fun - just too many people. For my in-laws and my kids, focusing on theater and music tix and restaurant vouchers in NYC. Cool memories last longer than things. Maybe some Christmas socks or a book too. (The Jesus part is the bigger deal for me, says the sanctimonious Bird Dog - but I do mean it.)
I have seen this too. How can these people look at themselves in the mirror, knowing they are milking their working neighbors and avoiding opportunities?
The dystopian fantasies which imagined that a police state would be the product of some right wing takeover never seemed to anticipate that just as in the east, it would be the left that would resort to it. That is where George Orwell, who came out of the left, proved far wiser than many other writers. The police state is a consequence of the left's failures, its economic failures and its demographic failures. That is as true in the United States as it is in the UK as it is in Israel and throughout what was once known as the free world.
Chicago: Feds probe union pension deals - Subpoenas show feds investigating how 11 leaders qualified for inflated retirement payments
The studies like this, of course, are more correlation than causation, but, in my experience, red-blooded men require more than three. The healthier fellows will be more vigorous and horny, so they will have more of these things. Strong young men in energetic relationships seem to need 2-3 per day.
But what about women? How many orgasms per week correlate with health and well-being?
...the frugal wealthy understand that it is not wealth per se but rather its flamboyant display that erects barriers between the rich and the rest. Gated communities, private jets and the mass promotion of ridiculously expensive luxury goods -- all widespread only in the last generation -- have done more to provoke class division and remove the rich from contact with ordinary people than the actual increases in their wealth.
In the last generation, but also at many times in history. Let's face it. We have vulgar rich, vulgar poor, and vulgar in-between. There is no cure for vulgarity.
...it's upsetting that some people have so much while other people have so little. It isn't fair. But I accept this unfairness. Indeed, I treasure it. That's because I have a 13-year-old daughter. And that's all I hear, "That's not fair," she says. "That's not fair! That's not fair!" And one day I snapped, and I said, "Honey, you're cute, that's not fair. Your family is pretty well off, that's not fair. You were born in America, that's not fair. Darling, you had better get down on your knees and pray that things don't start getting fair for you."
Having the luck to be born in America is the most unfair thing of all. Where else on the planet do you have a wide open field to plan a life according to your own lights, interests, abilities, and desires, and run for it? Freedom of pursuit, but no guarantee of results on this planet. And still, some people bitch like babies.
"The first man I saw was of a meagre aspect, with sooty hands and face, his hair and beard long, ragged, and singed in several places. His clothes, shirt, and skin, were all of the same colour. He has been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. He told me, he did not doubt, that, in eight years more, he should be able to supply the governor's gardens with sunshine, at a reasonable rate: but he complained that his stock was low, and entreated me "to give him something as an encouragement to ingenuity, especially since this had been a very dear season for cucumbers." I made him a small present, for my lord had furnished me with money on purpose, because he knew their practice of begging from all who go to see them."
Jonathan Swift, from Gulliver's Travels (h/t Englishman)
Many forms of atheism, and plenty of atheists appear to attend church or synagogue for all sorts of reasons - including the hope that faith might be contagious. One quote from Novak's post:
Some years ago I read a book on atheism, by a devout atheist (if that is the right word), who had found to his surprise that a large majority of those Americans who call themselves atheists actually believe in some more-than-human power, force, intelligence in all things. This is a position not altogether unlike the ancients (and the moderns) described in #3 above. The ancients did not call such persons atheists, but held them to be theists, albeit under a vague and unclear sort of deity, but intelligent and powerful and drawing all things toward the good.
"Higher Power"? That is certainly a form of theism albeit undeveloped.
It's gift time, and I have been thinking about my own gifts, such as they are. Besides being fairly tall, possessed of regular features, a Victoria's Secret killer shape despite 3 kids, and a functional IQ and an athletic nature, what are the gifts with which God has endowed me? Am I doing justice to those gifts?
I have recently made a project of listing my strengths and weaknesses, and my special abilities which I view as my gifts. Middle age will do this to a person. Like most people, my list of weaknesses and of abilities is long, but my talents are f.
Do I use my semi-talents well, those gifts of the spirit, and do I use them in service of the Lord? Do I neglect them, or do I use them only for my foolish personal wants? I do love my foolish personal wants, however pointless they may be. Like a certain Michael Kors handbag. For what?
Back at the barn after a long days' hunt today in the Hudson Valley with a pal and his business partner. Venison stew for lunch with a Bloody with extra horseradish, shot lots of birds over my pal's excellent Lab, saw three Bald Eagles (one of which, we suspect, stole a bird from our bird pile), smoked a cigar, had a few good beers and some very good conversation too. I shot quite well today, which I do not always do. I always find that an Irish Coffee or a Bloody helps my shooting.
Advent is hunting season too in this neck of the woods.
Thanks, pal, for hosting such a fine day. Les tres riche heures du Bird Dog, blessed as he is with good dear friends who like to do things. (On the other hand, he did chastise me, gently, a little for not monetising Maggie's Farm.)
The first keyboard I ever approached was an 1800s Mason & Hamlin single manual reed organ, technically a harmonium. The wind is generated by vacuum-generating bellows (hence "suction reed organ") pumped by the feet of the organist. From a technical standpoint, these are like upright accordions with an organ-like sound.
My Grandpa salvaged it when the local Congregational church bought a new organ. He kept it in his living room, and the elderly, old maid church organist would stop by, unannounced. to play the old thing until she died.
Today, old reed organs are thrown in the garbage, but I think it's a shame. They are of an era when these were all small congregations could afford. Some folks had them in their homes, too: "Parlor organs." You can find them cheap on eBay, but often people will be grateful if you will just take them away.
Did I mention that mice like to live in them? My parents finally threw the old thing in a dumpster because I failed to take it away myself in a reasonable period of time. My fault.
This fellow explains how to use the foot bellows to affect the playing of a reed organ:
The first tune I learned to play on it was the hymn Work For The Night Is Coming. It is not just a song of toil and death, but a song of toil in God's fields and pastures, and I still love it. Here's the only half-decent version I could find on YouTube (on piano, not reed organ - lyrics here):
In World War II, the United States did not have clear postwar goals for Eastern Europe. The brunt of this meant Eastern Europe suffered as Soviet satellites for almost half a century. The illusion of President Roosevelt about Stalin bears substantial responsibility.
The US held a moral stance toward eliminating Germany’s Nazi leadership and German rule over Europe. But, aside from desires, the US placed its eggs in the basket of a better postwar relationship with Stalin, rather than the freedom of Eastern Europe.
During the war, President Roosevelt had to deal with Churchill, who had a closer and clearer appreciation of the impact in Central and Eastern Europe of potential Soviet domination. But Roosevelt largely overrode Churchill. Roosevelt chose to deal with the paranoia of Stalin that (like Stalin had in 1939) the US and England would strike a deal with Germany short of its utter defeat. To the very end of his life, Roosevelt vainly believed, with vanity, that accommodating Stalin would yield trust and improved post-war relations. The fate of other peoples was secondary.
An illustration of Roosevelt’s haphazard policy making occurred at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943.
The firste stock-father of gentleness, What man desireth gentle for to be, Must follow his trace, and all his wittes dress, Virtue to love, and vices for to flee; For unto virtue longeth dignity, And not the reverse, safely dare I deem, All wear he mitre, crown, or diademe.
This firste stock was full of righteousness, True of his word, sober, pious, and free, Clean of his ghost, and loved business, Against the vice of sloth, in honesty; And, but his heir love virtue as did he, He is not gentle, though he riche seem, All wear he mitre, crown, or diademe.
Vice may well be heir to old richess, But there may no man, as men may well see, Bequeath his heir his virtuous nobless; That is appropried to no degree, But to the first Father in majesty, Which makes his heire him that doth him queme, All wear he mitre, crown, or diademe.
Gentleness meant "gentility," "refinement," as in the terms "genteel," "gentleman," and "gentry." I think "queme" meant "please." Jeff Chaucer was a fascinating fellow, well-educated and well-travelled, a prosperous businessman of the Medieval merchant class (including a wine-import business in London). A writer on the side. We are fortunate that some of his work survived the years. Was he the Father of English literature? Sort-of, yes. I took the Chaucer course in college, and we read it all in the Olde English. Good fun. We read everything he wrote. Almost like learning a new language.
"Locus of control" is a psychological concept popularized and studied by psychologist Julius Rotter. It refers mainly to the extent to which a personthinks of himself as master of, or at least as prime determinant of, his life and fate. Captain of his ship, so to speak, or at least Navigator.
In America, we consider an "internal locus of control" as a sign of character strength (associated with determination, a can-do spirit, resilience, etc), and "external locus of control" as a sign of characterologic frailty (associated with blaming, excuses, scapegoating, dependency, complaints of unfairness, etc).
I say "in America" because some cultures support external localization while some cultures disparage the tendency to attribute unwelcome results to external forces, whether human, luck, God, or whatever. Northern European cultures tend towards the "no excuses," "take your lumps and learn from them" end of the spectrum.
Character is Destiny, or so claimed the ancient Greeks - and Freud.
People who tend towards the external side of things (in my field, we term it "externalizing," or "externalizing defenses") are often less successful in pursuing their goals. These are the people who are unlikely to admit "I screwed up," or "I was wrong," "I failed at so-and-so," "I handled that poorly," or "I don't understand it." The externalizing sorts of defenses are most commonly used to maintain a positive, or inflated, self-image in the face of disappointment but, on the other hand (revealing the internal contradiction) such people are the first to take credit for their successes and achievements.
The modern classic line which dramatizes the two ends of the spectrum is Jimmy Buffet's "Some people claim there's a woman to blame, but I know it's my own damn fault." In America, rightly or wrongly, our traditions respect those who say "It's my own damn fault" instead of blaming external circumstances, life history, bad luck, etc.
We preach that every move we make, or do not make, is a decision for which moral and practical responsibility must be taken, and the consequences of which we must man-up and deal with. Women must man-up, too.
The American ideal of self-reliance and self-responsibility comes into regular conflict with Christian views of God's will and evil forces, with ego-enhancing psychological defences, and also with dependency and victimization attitudes, ideologies and politics. It all keeps life interesting.
Started thinking about Christmas shopping yet? I began to think about thinking about it last night. At the Farm, the immediate blood-related BD family (my two parents with five kids, each with a very nice spouse, countless grandkids of all sizes) decided years ago to prohibit presents as an interference with just getting together for drinks, food, and fun - just too many people. For my in-laws and my kids, focusing on theater and music tix and restaurant vouchers in NYC. Cool memories last longer than things. Maybe some Christmas socks or a book too. (The Jesus part is the bigger deal for me, says the sanctimonious Bird Dog - but I do mean it.)
What 
H/t 
It's gift time, and I have been thinking about my own gifts, such as they are. Besides being fairly tall, possessed of regular features, a Victoria's Secret killer shape despite 3 kids, and a functional IQ and an athletic nature, what are the gifts with which God has endowed me? Am I doing justice to those gifts?
The first keyboard I ever approached was an 1800s Mason & Hamlin single manual
A Ballad of Gentleness