Category Archives: generally

The 51st State

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump’s fixation on creating a 51st state is, as is the case with so many of his ideas, poorly thought out. Who is it going to be?  Canada?  Greenland?  Cuba?  Venezuela?  Some other country somebody mentions to him that sticks in the front of his mind ahead of all other issues?

A COD—Country of the Day.

Who have we left out?

Well, there’s one place that’s been hopeful for more than a century of becoming the 51st state.  Puerto Rico. But Puerto Rico—it’s just a place for paper towel-throwing demonstrations by a president who seems to want anybody BUT Puerto Rico to be considered anything more than he considers it to be—a possible trading chip to gain Greenland.

The Trump administration has been miserly in providing disaster relief to Puerto Ricans after hurricane a few years ago. He withheld $520 million in disaster aid.

I’ll trade you my ’62 Oldsmobile with no air conditioning and plenty of water damage for your ’53 Ford that doesn’t have a heater and uses tire chains seven months of the year.

None of the other four countries has expressed much interest in his undisciplined mind’s suggestions although Cuba certainly is closer than Hawaii—-although Cuba says it values its independence, is no Iran as a threat to this country, and shouldn’t be Trump’s next punching bag.

Putting Puerto Rico aside because it already is a United States territory, let’s think about the silliness of the other four.

He cannot sign an executive order declaring another country a state of the United States. That’s not the legal process for creating a new state—although for Trump, legal process is a dismissible thing.  His contempt for the law is beyond contemptible.

Think about this:

Making another country a state means that other country will come under our laws, our Constitution, our long history of court precedents. It will suddenly come under our clean air and clean water laws.  OSHA, just by itself, will be an enormous problem for many countries (we’ve climbed and descended some pretty dangerous steps lacking handrails in other countries just for one example). Highways will have to meet federal highway standards.  In the case of Canada, the province of Quebec will have to forget its French language.  It’s not ‘Murican y’know.

The EPA will face a seemingly insurmountable challenge. Healthcare programs will have to be brought into conformation with United States plans.  Currency, banking, stock markets—all will  be changed to the American system.

Integrating the military systems, minimum wage standards, pension programs, and taxes will have to conform to our system.  Speaking of finances—currency uniformity will be a real bear.

The social safety net expansion will be horrendous.

National Parks, national historic sites, cultural centers, museums, and school systems will suddenly have to be made American.

Licensed professionals will have to be re-licensed and relicensed under American standards. Lawyers under other countries’ systems of laws will have to be retrained in our system so their citizens will be protected as our citizens are (except in certain Democratic-controlled cities, of course).

Political conventions will face enormous challenges and it is likely there will be more than two parties.

Licensing of professionals—doctors, lawyers, etc.—-will have to be done by our standards.

Just changing the style of traffic signs will cost, maybe, billions. No more kilometers.

And our history books will have to be rewritten to reflect the history of the newest state.

Did you ever hear of Alexander McKenzie?  No, he’s not a character from “Outlander.”  He’s the Canadian explorer who became he first “literate traveler” to cross North America north of Mexico—a decade before Lewis and Clark.  Giving up Lewis and Clark might be a leap greater than some Americans can tolerate.

And that brings us to the differences in our countries in dealing with indigenous people—
“First Nations” as they’re called in Canada.

What happens to the national anthems? Will anybody be allowed to sing them?

Missouri was a district, then a territory, and once it became socially and bureaucratically qualified, a state.

What will become of the existing governments and their employees? And their government pensions? The national capitols and capitol cities?  What will be their status or will they cease to be nothing more than historic sites?  What new religions might we have to deal with or what religions from our newest “state” will change our religious demographics in an uncomfortable way for established denominations? //?

Highly important: How will we gerrymander their congressional districts so they’ll vote red? Gotta protect the homeland.

How long will it take for the new state’s education system to equal ours?   That’s one that could cut both ways.

And—-

Wait a minute!

Hold the phone!

Some of these countries speak SPANISH!!!!

We know what problems that present sto the 50-state country and what its present administration that thinks of people who speak Spanish.  It’s been rounding them up, impounding them by the thousands in often miserable concentrations, and shipping them off to countries that are not being considered for statehood.

And how about those who speak Kalaallisut, Tunumit, and Inuktun, and Danish?  The first three make up better than 96% of a language known as Greenlandic. The rest speak Danish.

Oh, dear….

For years MAGA people even before there were MAGA people insisted our official language is our version of English.  How can we be considering adding states that present us with such language challenges?

At least Canada has a language closer ours except they say “Eh” while we say “y’know.”

How long can we keep asking these questions for which our President has no answers?

But having no answers, at least no honest answers, is what he’s best at.

Viewing what he has done with the 50 states now under his supervision leaves no confidence that he can deal with a 51st state no matter how he might try to have it created.

Here is another possibility he hasn’t thought of.  Combine more than ninety islands that this country took over in the 1890s into one jurisdiction although they’re separated by a few thousand miles. Our country claimed them because of their vast mineral deposits.

And what was that much valued mineral?

Guano. These islands had no people but they had birds for centuries and their byproduct was needed as fertilizer in this country. Trump could claim that combining these islands into one new state would prove that this country is the only one that really has all it’s ______ together.

AI Sees Itself

Posted on by
Reply

A few days ago, Jake Tapper on CNN asked whether AI was a threat or a blessing. He talked to a couple of folks about how AI is revolutionizing the discovery of Cancers, for example.

I began to wonder if AI rivals the biggest ethical concerns since the development of atomic energy—-the development of it for peaceful purposes vs. the use of it for war.  Have there been other social/scientific/political issues between the atomic bomb Then and the AI Now that presented greater opportunities for both peace and disaster?  Let us know in the comments box below.

To move the discussion along, I decided to consult with my techno/philosophical café table companion, Steve Mays.

I had coffee (well he had an Expresso and I had a Diet Coke) with Steve last Saturday morning.  We enjoy discussing philosophical issues and I mentioned to him that in my next “Notes from a Quiet Hill” entry I was going to ask if Artificial Intelligence presented the greatest ethical issue for humanity since the creation of the Atomic Bomb.

On one hand it can identify cancer before it’s cancer. On the other hand, it can replace humans in an uncomfortable number of ways.

We quickly agreed it might be the great ethical issue of our present time. And then Steve—who many years ago bludgeoned me into acknowledging that this internet thing might be useful—decided to ask one of his I-phone AI sites to answer the question. (Steve is an Applelarian, an early adopter who at times stood in line before sunrise for the latest iteration is his cell phone and I an Androidian who last week was happy to stroll into Best Buy and go back to the future by buying a flip phone.)

Yes, after 20 or more years carrying around what seemed to be increasingly larger cell phones, I have sought a smaller pocket load.

I chose this color because it’s harder to forget where I put it.

This is the response from AI:

Is AI Humanity’s Greatest Ethical Issue Since the Atomic Bomb?

The question of whether AI is humanity’s greatest ethical issue since the atomic bomb is not a settled one — experts are deeply divided, and the answer depends on how one defines “greatest” and “since the atomic bomb.”

Historical context
The atomic bomb’s ethical weight came from its unprecedented destructive power, the existential threat it posed, and the moral responsibility of its creators and deployers. AI, by contrast, is a general-purpose technology with dual-use potential — it can be deployed for immense good (e.g., medical diagnostics, climate modeling) or for profound harm (e.g., autonomous weapons, deepfakes, mass surveillance) Yale University Press.

Why AI is ethically urgent

  • Scale and pervasiveness: Unlike nuclear weapons, AI systems are now embedded in nearly every sector — healthcare, finance, law, education, and governance — making them a constant presence in human life Yale University Press+1.
  • Autonomy and decision-making: AI can make decisions without human oversight, raising questions about accountability, consent, and the erosion of human agency pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
  • Bias and fairness: AI systems can perpetuate or amplify societal biases, affecting everything from hiring to criminal justice Springer.
  • Truth and authority: Generative AI challenges traditional notions of authorship, truth, and expertise, potentially undermining trust in information MDPI.
  • Existential risk: Some experts warn of long-term risks such as job displacement on a scale unseen since industrialization, or AI systems that could act against human interests Psychology Today+1.

Why it may not yet be “greatest”
While AI’s ethical stakes are high, the atomic bomb’s moral gravity was tied to its immediate, catastrophic consequences and the nuclear arms race. AI’s risks are more diffuse, long-term, and systemic, but they are also more preventable through regulation, transparency, and ethical design Yale University Press+1. Many scholars argue that AI’s ethical challenges are significant but not yet on the same existential scale as nuclear weapons.

Conclusion
AI is arguably humanity’s most pressing ongoing ethical challenge since the atomic bomb — not because it matches the bomb’s immediate destructiveness, but because it is a pervasive, evolving technology with the potential to reshape society, values, and human relationships in ways that demand urgent, global ethical governance. Whether it is “the greatest” depends on one’s priorities: immediate existential threat, long-term societal transformation, or the erosion of human control.

In short, it is—as was the case with atomic energy and any other revolutionary technology such as moveable type, mass production of cotton gins, internal combustion engines, broadcasting, satellite communication and imaging—up to humans to decide how a significant new technology will be used.

We have only ourselves to trust.  Or, sometime in the future, to blame.

-0-

Bob Psychology

Posted on by
Reply

I think I have figured out why Donald Trump is Donald Trump.

He never had a pet.  No dog, no cat, no gerbils, no fish or lizards when he was growing up.  There is something valuable in having a creature that expects nothing more than a pat on the head, a scratch behind the ears, a bowl of food and a clean litter box or a regular walk outside with regular people taking their dogs out for the morning or evening “duties.”

He grew up never knowing responsibility for another creature or never knowing the comfort of unreserved love.

Donald Trump grew up in a world of concrete, steel, and glass, a cold-eyed world committed to money and power. He never was exposed to the majesty of mountains, the beauty and sometimes threat of flowing streams and rivers, the quiet of a valley, the dignity of ancient trees.

He was never a scout, never spent the night in a tent listening to the sounds in the darkness. He never learned through such experiences responsibility for others, shared dreams, or loyalty to something other than himself.

He never was with people who were different but who were the same as fellow human beings.

Those things would have required him to live outside of his limited world and his limited culture.

He might be a different person if he had found the peace of a cat asleep on his lap or a dog by his side, creatures giving a great deal and expecting just a little affection in return.

He might be less cruel. More tolerant. Understanding that affection is more productive than loyalty.  It is harder to be belligerent, bellicose, and antagonistic if you have a dog that welcomes you home, licks your hand, and leans against your leg hoping for a gentle pat or a rub.

He is the first president without a White House dog since William McKinley who served from 1897 until his assassination in 1901.  However, McKinley did have parrots, roosters—and kittens while he lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Missouri Senator George Graham Vest is best known for his “Eulogy on a Dog,” spoken to a Warrensburg jury in an 1870 lawsuit filed against a man who killed another man’s dog:

The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is the dog.

Donald Trump never has known anything this beautiful and our nation—and our world—suffer.

He says he has “no time” for a dog. It would be good for all of us if he spent more time with a loving pet than he spends on social media hating so many people.

For example: Max sometimes helps me with these postings.

He gets that look about the time that he thinks its cat dinner time. And it works. I can’t stand that starving look in his eyes, that silent beg for a new bowl of food. Have pity on your poor starving cat, he seems to be saying.

And I have no choice but to obey.

And other times, sister Minnie has some thoughts she wants to share. Or she just wants some company. Or something soft and warm to sit on. She’s a clock watcher who starts suggesting it’s dinner time a half-hour before it is and I’m sure she calls in Max to stare at me if there’s a delay. Regardless, she makes sure I have opportunities throughout the day to commune with my lady cat even while I’m trying to type around her presence.

I am a better person because of them and because of all of the pets I have known since I was crawling on all fours at the same level of Jiggs, our first family dog.

It’s a shame our president never lived at that level with something as wonderful as a pet.

 

An Old Testament Story for Our Times

Posted on by
Reply

With President Trump, some of his cabinet members, and his evangelical supporters finding Bible verses from either testament to justify what has been going on since he resumed office, we thought we would offer an Old Testament story that should be a cautionary tale for our situation.

We have enjoyed several of Malcolm Gladwell’s perceptive books (and are likely to enjoy more) one of which carries the title of the story from the Bible that gets to today’s situation in the Mideast.

Here’s Malcolm telling the story.

The unheard story of David and Goliath | Malcolm Gladwell

Our President is learning that being big is no guarantee of being superior. We are sure, given his statements about his favorite book that he has read the seventeenth chapter of First Samuel. We wonder, therefore, being the student of the Bible that he claims to be, why he hasn’t connected the dots.

There’s a cease fire as we write this. It’s a great chance for the Iranians to stock up on more stones.

-0-

Reaching To the Stars

Posted on by
Reply

They’re there.

Our “Star Sailors” travelling farther away from their source of life than anyone ever has traveled before, are circling the Moon today, four thousand miles beyond the flight of three men of Apollo 13, seeing parts of the noon only mechanical recording system have seen.

They are spending about six hours in their Orion spacecraft photographing places on the back side of the moon. And then they will sling shot back for a fiery return to our blue marble

Fifty-seven years ago, at Christmas 1968, three men from the planet earth saw what only had been seen with telescopes and the naked eye for millennia. Apollo 8’s Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders described the black and white images we saw of a gray and black world below them as they looped around the moon.

To those of us who could not take our eyes from our television screens showing us a desolate place almost a quarter-million miles away, the event was astounding. All of the science fiction we had read since we were in grade school dissolved in the reality of what we and the rest of his precious planet were witnessing along with those three men.

The men of Apollo 8 later showed us color photographs of earthrise over the Moon and the first photograph of the round blue marble as they left it behind and to which they gratefully returned.

It was Anders who is credited with seeing the entire earth at a glance who likened it to a fragile “little Christmas tree ornament against an infinite backdrop of space, the only color in the whole universe we could see. It seemed so very finite.” This image from Apollo 8 was the first time we saw what they saw—how alone we are.

The four astronauts aboard the Artemis II flight these five decades later, are the first people since December 1972 and Apollo 17 to let us see it again. To a new generation, to whom the daring dash to the Moon by Apollo 8 is only a page in a history books, the adventure is renewed.  Its goal, different from the Apollo landings, an exciting reach for humanity, perhaps re-establishes a focus on something greater than petty politics and near-constant wars.

Perhaps in these and other photographs to come will end decades of looking inward and increasingly finding the worst of ourselves and once again lift us to rediscover a time when, as one of the original Apollo astronauts said, “nothing was impossible.”

It brings back echoes of President Kennedy’s speech at Rice University in 1962 when called for this country to send astronauts to the moon and bring them back safely.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. 

He saw he mission to the Moon would “serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skill.”

A new generation now picks up that challenge as the last of the old generation waits to learn what “new knowledge is gained, what new rights will be won and used for the benefit of all people.”

Carl Sagan, an astronomer of another generation whose television series Cosmos explained the wonders of the universe and mankind’s place in one tiny place in the vast emptiness of space, once showed a photograph taken far, far, farther away than these from Apollo and Artemis.

The photograph taken from 3.7 billion miles from us show only a tiny blue dot.  “Look again at that dot,” he said. “That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every ‘superstar,’ every ‘supreme leader,’ every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there—on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

The next step will be to send a new generation of Moonwalkers to make the dangerous descent,  to find new discoveries, and—we all hope—leave new footprints behind before they come home.

Geologist Harrison Schmitt was the last man to set foot on the Moon, the only true scientist to be there so far.  But Mission Commander Gene Cernan was the last man to leave a footprint on the Moon as he climbed the ladder to the Lunar Lander behind Schmitt.  He looked forward to the return and had some advice for the next people who step onto the lunar soil:

Cernan told Politico a few years ago:

There are times when I find myself almost involuntarily gazing at the moon — looking back on a time in my life that seems unreal. Oh, I’ve been there, all right, and know that my last footprints, along with Tracy’s initials, will be there forever — however long forever is. But it is not the past that any longer challenges me, but rather the future. Our destiny is to explore, discovery is our goal — curiosity being the essence of human existence. I often ask myself if we will ever go again where humans have never been before and see again what has never been seen before. The answer is absolutely yes.

In 1969, the world took a giant leap into the future as the result of that one small step by Neil Armstrong. Many more steps were to follow Neil’s, launching us into a new era of science, technology and, perhaps most important, discovery led by a new generation of young, eager scientists, engineers and educators who were inspired to accept the challenge and committed to see their dreams fulfilled. Today’s media coverage of that epic moment seems to many like science fiction. But it wasn’t. It was science fact and continues to this day to have significant impact on our lives, on our future, and, indeed, on the entire world. The benefits that have followed were hardly imaginable at the time. One of the core lessons from Apollo is that the greatest advances in science and technology happen as a byproduct of the bold steps we take when committing ourselves to expanding human knowledge and understanding. Perhaps the most important byproduct of Kennedy’s vision that took us to the moon is the passion inspired in the hearts and minds of those generations who follow in our footsteps.

We have again reached a challenge in human history. The moon, Mars and beyond — they are calling. The technology and systems to again reach for the stars are now within our reach. The benefits are there for us to claim. However, it will take the will of the American people, a sustained political commitment, and, once again, a leader with foresight and vision. Now is the time for America to recognize with pride our nation’s exceptionalism, regain our leadership in space and lead the free world on the next giant leap for mankind.

Today’s highly evolved and improved answer to Apollo is the Space Launch System and the Orion crew exploration spacecraft. Together they can open the door to the future, providing the capabilities we need, allowing us to finally reach the furthest frontiers of space. NASA and industry are making significant progress with the development of these deep space systems. American workers across the nation are making the probability of future space exploration again attainable. If I can call the moon my home before today’s generation was even born, what challenge can be beyond their reach? The driving force is the understanding that human space exploration is essential to the vitality of our nation, providing untold opportunity for generations to come.

Bipartisan support for space has remained strong since the days of Sputnik continuing to the present time. With determined leadership from the administration and ongoing support from Congress, we can enable NASA and industry to complete their work to build the systems we need to explore beyond the moon.

With SLS/Orion we are ready to seek out what the heavens have to offer — it is time for our nation’s leaders to commit to a clear logical destination, a mission, a goal with a timetable, plotting a course of new discovery. It is time to re-ignite, to re-energize the meaning of American exceptionalism. It is time to recognize what it takes to inspire young minds to dream big and accept the challenges their generation faces. We have the responsibility to provide them the direction and the opportunity to once again reach beyond their grasp in leading mankind into the future of discovery.

In a later interview, Cernan said, “Their future is going to depend on what we did a half a century ago. I’d like to be here to congratulate them, to thank them, and ask them what people ask me all the time, ‘What did it feel like?’

”Enjoy. Take advantage of the opportunity. Don’t take anything for granted. Be prepared for what you don’t expect to happen, and know that you, whoever you are, can do it. Not only can you do it, but can do it better than it’s ever been done before.“

Gene Cernan didn’t make it to this day. He died nine years ago.

Those who are sharing their view of the Moon with all of us here on “the good green earth” of Apollo 8’s Christmas message are the table-setters for those who will next land. Perhaps in this new era of exploration we will rediscover a belief in ourselves that has been dwindling since those days when “nothing was impossible.”

Only four of those who walked on the Moon survive.  Buzz Aldrin is 95 and in poor health. Dave Scott is 93. Charlie Duke, the youngest man to walk on the moon at age 36, is now 90. And Harrison Schmitte, the geologist who later became a U.S. Senator from New Mexico, also is 90. A dozen other men flew to the moon but did not walk upon it. Only Fred Haise of Apollo 13 survives from that group.

Just for the record: The remaining Apollo capsules were used to send nine astronauts to Skylab, our first space station. Joe Kerwin, 94, Jack Lousma, 90, and Edward (Hoot) Gibson, 89 are still with us.

Lousma and Haise were involved in the early flights of the Space Shuttle, as was moonwalker John Young (who died in 2018 as the only man to fly in the Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle programs). Vance Brand, who would have commanded Apollo 18 if the program had not been cancelled, took part in the Skylab and Shuttle programs. He will be 95 next month.

NASA doesn’t plan a Moon landing until September 2028. We hope at least one of this generation will be here to welcome that crew back home.

(Earth pictures: NASA; Apollo astronaut Alan Bean, the fourth man to walk on the moon, an accomplished artist who spent the rest of his life depicting that earlier era of moon flights died in 2018. His work that gave its name to the title of this entry, is signed by more than twenty of the Apollo astronauts. Several of his prints are available through Novaspace.com or on various other internet sies)

 

It’s Time to Order Another Obelisk 

Posted on by
Reply

The Missouri Veterans Memorial at the Capitol is a quiet place,  of a slow-moving cascade of water flowing into a reflecting pool around which people can ponder how much is lost to war.

And how much will be.

To the east of the pool is a shaded walk that takes visitors past nine memorial obelisks remembering the nine wars in which Missourians have fought since statehood in 1821—Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and finally the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, less than a year after the ninth obelisk was dedicated—after an end date of that long war was determined—it is time to plan for a tenth one.

As this is written, no Missourian has been killed in Trump’s War—-which is not what it will be called in the black granite when the tenth obelisk is installed.  As of now, it probably will say “Iran War,” but it’s too early to carve anything into stone because we don’t know what the scope of this conflict will finally be.

Nor, apparently, does the man who ordered it. He started the war and now he is whining that NATO is giving him no help.

NATO, the people he has spent the last several years insulting and threatening, seems content to letting President Trump stew in his own juice.  NATO is more about protecting Ukraine (remember Ukraine, Mr, President?) and itself than helping President Trump.

The Coalition of the Willing has become the Coalition of the Unwilling.

To refresh our minds:  then-President George W. Bush declared at a NATO summit in 2002 that if Iraq President Saddam Hussein did not disarm (he was accused of having weapons of mass destruction), that the United States would assemble a “coalition of the willing” to do it for him.

Saddam didn’t. So George Bush’s United States and troops from 48 other countries backed the plan. Four countries eventually put boots on the ground—us, the UK, Australia, and Poland). More than three dozen other countries provided some troops but not major numbers. Some don’t even had standing armies but provide other kinds of help.

The coalition did not hold and it became a topic of political ridicule (Busch had offered foreign aid to participants, a policy that one columnist termed “a coalition of the billing” and another observer considered “a coalition of the shilling.”) By mid-2009 everybody but the United States and the United Kingdom coalition had backed away.  The Coalition of the Willing was considered ended in 2010.

President Bush assembled his coalition before the fight began.  President Trump just barged right in—BOMBED his way right in—to a new war and did not ask for help until Iran fought back and closed the Straits of Hormuz. Only then did he look for friends in NATO only to find he didn’t have very many anymore.

He’s watching his foreign policy by sledgehammer wielded by amateurs turn into quicksand. He is so desperate that he has lessened some sanctions against Russia—imposed as a reaction to the invasion of Ukraine—in an effort to relieve some pressure on the oil supply which seemingly could help finance further Russian operations against Ukraine, if we understand where this policy is leading.  He’s firing missiles the way kids fire bottle rockets on July 4th while China watches our war-making or defensive armaments dwindle and also watches Taiwan. The early talk about not using troops is ominously sounding like —using troops.

Some observers have suggested that Iran is Trump’s Ukraine.

“Some people will die, I guess,” the President has said.

Order the tenth obelisk. Too bad the state can’t send the bill for it to President Trump.

A few weeks ago, my state representative, Dave Griffith, asked me if I could find how many Missourians died in the wars of the eighth and ninth obelisks (Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan).  I could not locate numbers but I did find a website that listed the names of all of the military people who died in those conflicts. I picked out the Missouri names and sent them to him.

Their names won’t be on the obelisks although the number of those who died will be someday.

Their names are on their own monuments scattered throughout the graveyards of Missouri and elsewhere, unfortunately soon to be joined by similar monuments from Trump’s War.  Here is the list from President Bush’s War, with the date of official notification.  We pray their tragic coalition will not be joined by a new coalition from Mr. Trump’s War, but we fear it will be.

Let us know if your loved one killed in these long wars is not on the list.

Continue reading →

The Missouri  Optimist

Posted on by
Reply

Two years from now, we will observe the sesquicentennial of the publication of the first edition of the Blue Book, the Official State Manual as it is more formally called. Secretary of State Michael McGrath published it in 1878 not only to list the people and agencies that constituted Missouri government then but to use it as a one-man state chamber of commerce.  Amidst his extensive horn-blowing, we find some things still true of ourselves. We also find some things to which we still should aspire almost 150 years later.

This is his Foreword to “The Almanac and Official Directory of Missouri:”

MISSOURI. It is a truth that must be admitted, that very many outside of Missouri, and some even in it, know but little of its vast resources or of its immense wealth and unexampled prosperity, and when told scarcely believe it, so great is the extent and magnitude thereof.

There is no territory of equal size on the continent which contain so varied and such large quantities of the most useful minerals. Missouri may safely challenge the world to produce a Superior in this respect.

It is estimated by those who have computed the quantity of Iron in Pilot Knob and Iron Mountain, that there is, above the surface of these mountains alone, iron sufficient to afford an annual supply of 1,000,000 tons for two hundred years.

Lead and Zinc Ores are found almost everywhere in South Missouri, and the lead mines of Granby, Joplin, and Mine LaMotte, are almost inexhaustible.

Iron and Coal underlie some of the richest lands in the State. In many cases it is difficult to determine whether the agricultural or mineral resources are most remunerative. If Missouri were as densely populated as England, it would have a population of 25,000,000, and by the extent and diversity of its resources is far better able to support this vast number in competency and independence than England is to maintain its present population. This seems incredible but is nevertheless the fact.

 Missouri presents to the farmer conditions of soil and climate favorable to his calling. The richness of the soil cannot be surpassed. Farms, after bearing without artificial fertilization twenty-five successive crops, have failed to show scarcely any decrease in productiveness; water is abundant, and streams and springs are found in every portion of it,

Its climate is delightful; the winters are short and mild, and the summers long and temperate. In Missouri, agriculture will compensate the skillful and industrious follower with independence and wordly riches. To it manufacturers are invited, with the offer of rich facilities, and if natural adaptation, be any evidence of the future, Missouri will at no distant day become the workshop of the Great Valley of the Mississippi.

It is unnecessary to enumerate the articles that ought to be manufactured in it; there is scarcely a want or luxury of domestic manufacture known to the human family but what can be readily supplied from it. Railroads traverse all portions of the State, and reach almost every city, town and village in it.

Missouri, being already rated the fifth State in the confederation, and soon to become the fourth with an area exactly equal to that of all the New England States put togeiher, and once and a half as large as tbe great State of New York; and in the City of St. Louis, now the third in size and population in the Union, as its Metropolis, it requires no prophecy to foretell the millions who will within the next twenty years seek homes within it.

A calculation based upon the census is all that the prediction demands. The present population, according to the last State census of 2,100,000 is entirely insufficient to develop her vast resources, and it therefore seeks the co-operation of colonists from the Eastern, Northern, and Southern States, and of the sturdy and industrious immigrants who annually arrive in this free country, fleeing from oligarchal and despotic governments, to better themselves. It invites also the overcrowded of the seaboard cities of this country, to cross the father of waters and make their homes within her.

Missouri may be regarded as offering greater inducements, as to climate, soil and fertility to the farmer, artisan, laborer, colonist and immigrant than any of the other States or parts of the country. Missouri promises to all a cordial welcome, and liberal compensation for labor. Millions may settle within her borders without exhausting the ample means in store for them. Her schools, both public and private, are the best in the country.

It may be said without fear of contradiction that Missouri is today the most prosperous and best governed State in the Union. In fact, no location in the Republic presents a more encouraging field for the honest laborer or the aspiring citizen.

Tbe contentions of the war have long since disappeared. Liberalism and toleration in politics and religion, are noted characteristics of her people. They are generous, hospitable and enterprising. Among them poverty and humble birth present no barrier to the attainment of wealth, distinction and honor. True merit is the criterion of success, and is fostered by hearty encouragement and profitable recognition.

Occupying, as she does already, a front rank among the States of the Union, it is easy to forecast her future as one of glory and renown! M. K. McG.

We recognize this is a certain amount of puffery intended to promote Missouri and we frankly see the same sort of thing today although in modern language.

One line jumps out, however.

The present population, according to the last State census of 2,100,000 is entirely insufficient to develop her vast resources, and it therefore seeks the co-operation of colonists from the Eastern, Northern, and Southern States, and of the sturdy and industrious immigrants who annually arrive in this free country, fleeing from oligarchal and despotic governments, to better themselves.

Would he write that about us today?

 

The Four Freedoms 

Posted on by
Reply

In a far distant time, a President would deliver a State of the Union address free of bombast, lies, and accusations.

Here’s one, delivered as one part of the world was back at war and the other part was likely to erupt somewhere, sometime.   Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke on January 6, 1941. The contrast to what we heard from our present occupant of the White House  jumps out at us.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute peoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people’s freedom…

The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.

For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
††††††††††† Jobs for those who can work.
††††††††††† Security for those who need it.
††††††††††† The ending of special privilege for the few.
††††††††††† The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations…

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception—the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change—in a perpetual peaceful revolution—a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions—without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.     

Less than a year later the nation knew the principles it was fighting for when a two-ocean war was threatening “the simple, basic things” we stood for…then.

T

 

(Image credit: Norman Rockwell exhibition, New York Historical Society)

0900909090

 

Heroes and Hats

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t remember when I decided I liked Willie Nelson.  Maybe it’s because I spent my Saturday afternoons at the Grand Theatre in Sullivan, Illinois watching western double features, sometimes with a serial and a cartoon or two, sitting next to my friend Chuck Woolen in a pair of seats that he had marked by cutting a small notch in the shared arm rest.

The last time I was in the old theatre, now called the Little Theatre on the Square where they do stage shows and musicals, that notch was still there.

I was a member of the Roy Rogers Riders Club and was distressed that a family trip caused me to miss that Saturday’s “meeting” and a chance to pick up the latest Roy Rogers souvenir—a drinking glass one day, as I recall.

It’s awfully hard to resist a good western movie—High Noon, Shane, the Searchers, The Gunfighter, 3:10 to Yuma, Broken Trail, Open Range, Tombstone/Wyatt Earp, Silverado and the ultimate television series—Lonesome Dove (the book grabbed me like no other with first line: “Augustus McCrae walked out onto the porch to discover his two pigs fighting over a dead rattlesnake.”)

I can’t think of another actor who was made to wear a battered cowboy hat better than Robert Duvall was—

Poe and Faulkner, Salinger and Fitzgerald, Vonnegut and Hawthorne and Melville and Hemingway, the Russian greats that I gave up on by the third page because I couldn’t pronounce their character’s names, and all those other high-faulutin’ writers my English professors thought I should adore never started a book that caught me like Lonesome Dove.  I’ve read stuff from most of those guys but none of them wrote about anybody like Gus McCrae.

The other day, I started thinking about two of Willie’s songs that I always have liked as a sad dialogue by a old cowboy wistfully evaluating his life—and also a gypsy touring artist wondering if he shouldn’t have listened to his mother.

Wonder what it would sound like if somebody did a mix of Willie singing the first part and Waylon singing the boldface lines—–

Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don’t let ’em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make ’em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys
‘Cause they’ll never stay home and they’re always alone
Even with someone they love

I grew up a-dreamin’ of bein’ a cowboy
And lovin’ the cowboy ways
Pursuin’ the life of my high-ridin’ heroes
I burned up my childhood days
I learned all the rules of a modern-day drifter
Don’t you hold on to nothin’ too long
Take what you need from the ladies, then leave them
With the words of a sad country song

Cowboys ain’t easy to love and they’re harder to hold
They’d rather give you a song than diamonds or gold
Lonestar belt buckles and old faded Levis
And each night begins a new day
If you don’t understand him, and he don’t die young
He’ll probably just ride away

Cowboys are special with their own brand of misery
From bein’ alone too long
You can die from the cold in the arms of a night man
Knowin’ well that your best days are gone.

Pickin’ up hookers instead of my pen
I let the words of my youth fade away
Old worn-out saddles, and old worn-out memories
With no one and no place to stay

Cowboys like smoky old pool rooms and clear mountain mornings
Little warm puppies and children and girls of the night
Them that don’t know him won’t like him and them that do
Sometimes won’t know how to take him
He ain’t wrong, he’s just different but his pride won’t let him
Do things to make you think he’s right.

My heroes have always been cowboys
And they still are, it seems
Sadly, in search of, and one step in back of
Themselves and their slow-movin’ dreams

Sadly, in search of, and one step in back of  themselves and their slow-movin’ dreams

Willie and Waylon sang them but Ed Bruce and his wife, Patsy, wrote “Mama…” He first recorded it in 1975 and his version hit number 15 on Billboard’s Hot Country Singles charts that year and into ’76. It’s one of the top 100 country songs of all time. Rolling Stone in 2024 ranked it 69th on its 200 greatest country songs.

Waylon recorded “Heroes” in 1976 and Willie made it even more popular in 1980 as part of the soundtrack to the Robert Redford/Jane Fonda movie, The Electric Horseman.  Sharon Vaughn wrote it and Willie took it to number one on the country hit list. The Western Writers of America say it’s one of their 100 favorite western songs.

Regardless, my heroes always have been cowboys although I grew up to be one of those who became an “and such.”

Photo credits: Slaker Hats, Open Range)

Olympian Words

Posted on by
Reply

Those whose undies quickly got into a knot when some of our Olympic athletes questioned their nation’s course seem to live by the motto, “My country right or wrong.”

They aren’t right—correction—they aren’t correct.

Those young people know what their country is experiencing and that knowledge will bode well for this country as their generation grows in experience and influence. National polls indicate a significant part of the citizenry agree with them.

The erroneous interpretation of that famous comment spiced up the first days of the Olympic games and led to some pretty tasteless retorts to the concerns expressed by those Olympians about the direction of our country.

Let’s begin by setting the record straight on this famous quotation. Should it be the guiding principle of our patriotism/ Or is it, as one source has put it, “a jingoistic war cry?”

There are various versions of this statement.

This is the original statement, from Commodore Stephen Decatur, a hero of the War of 1812, who reportedly offered a toast: “My Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong.”

Leaving out the words that precede the six words at the end short-changes the total message.

In 1871, one of Missouri’s U. S. Senators, Carl Schurz, got into a debate with fellow Senator Matthew Carpenter of Wisconsin, a power in Reconstruction America, who had quoted Decatur in one of his fiery orations.  Schurz told Carpenter the sentiment should be, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Reports indicate his interpretation led to thunderous applause from the Senate gallery.

Olympic freestyle skier Hunter Hess told reporters, “It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now. I think it’s a little hard. There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t. Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”

Figure skater Amber Glenn referred to Trump policies against the LGBTQ community and said, “I hope I can use my voice and this platform to help people stay strong in these hard times.”

Snowboarder Chloe Kim, the daughter of immigrants, told interviewers, “I think in moments like these, it is really important for us to unite and kind of stand up for one another for all that’s going on and I think that I’m really proud to represent the United States.”

They represent the best that American can be body.

Our President, of course, couldn’t stand it when the athletes exercised their free speech rights. He went on Untruth Social to call Hess “a real loser” and said it was “very hard to root for someone like this.”

Vice-President Vance added, ”You’re not here to pop off about politics. So when Olympic athletes enter the political arena, they should expect some pushback.”

I guess Vance is saying it would be just fine if these athletes “popped off’ at home although their comments would not be any less irritating to the constantly irritable—and irritation-producing—administration.

Republican Senator Jim Jordan, a Trumpian, called the remarks “ridiculous,” and said, “It’s an honor to get to represent the greatest country in history in the Olympic Games. That makes no sense to me. I haven’t seen some of the things they’ve said, but if they’re disparaging the country while representing it, that makes no sense.”

Sorry, Senator, It does make sense. The freedom to question power is inbred in the American character. It’s how we became an independent nation 250 years ago. Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware understands that. “There is nothing more patriotic than questioning your own country when its leadership makes decisions that are so sharply out of line with our values and traditions,” he said.

As far as “disparaging the country while representing it,” perhaps Jordan should consider the degrading things his President has said. They are far worse. John Stewart created a montage for his Daily Show to examine the hypocrisy of Jordan, Vance, and other defenders.  In the montage, President Trump proclaims, “Our country is now a cesspool.”

“We are a nation in decline.”

We’re in a failing country; we’re in a country that’s being laughed at.”

“We’re a dumping ground. We’re like a garbage can.”

“Our country is going to Hell.”

“We have blood, death, and suffering on a scale once untenable.”

“…a third world hell hole ruled by censors, perverts, criminals and thugs.”

I guess we could give him credit for speaking the truth (to himself although he doesn’t recognize it) on some of these points. His crude words and actions validate what our athletes voiced.

What our Olympians were saying is more closely attuned to something the great English statesman William Burke said in 1790:  To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.”

A book written in 1958 that became a best seller was called “The Ugly American.”  It’ still in print.  The title has more than some relevance today. And there has been no reason for these Olympians to say so because—-

—-a lot of the rest of the world has the same impression of what our country has become—and our President seems to be the epitome of that book’s title.

They show us grace on the ice, courage on the ski jump and on the bobsled run, subtlety on the curling floor, and daring as they skate at frightening speeds on a small track.  They are in deeds as well as in words representatives not of the United States that unfortunately is, but of what the United States can be—and will be as their generation, having witnessed these times, become shapers of better times to come.

(photo credit: NPR)