The SoapBoxers

I have written several articles on the various activities in the middle east that are general associated as the Arab spring. There have been calls for intervention in every location that has had violence. The United States chose not to intervene in Egypt. The choice was to provide air cover for the rebels in Libya. There has apparently been no decision to intervene in Syria, at least not yet. I have taken the stance that the United States should not intervene in any of these conflicts.

Yes, innocent people are being injured and killed. Yes, the existing governments are cruel and corrupt. No, it is not the responsibility of the United States to beat sense into every country in the world.

I did support intervention in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In Iraq, a sovereign nation, Kuwait, was invaded and asked for assistance. Saudi Arabia felt threatened by Iraq and also asked for assistance. A lot of people forget that the Iraq war was started by Iraq and that Iraq violated every article of the cease fire that they begged for. People also forget that President Bush went back to the United Nations and asked permission to enforce those articles. He did not need to but he did. Instead, the political left claimed he was going in to steal the oil or take revenge for an attempt on the life of former President Bush, his father. Unfortunately, the reason for fighting was confused by the declaration of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Again, this claim was presented by Iraq, then denied. At least one of the issues that drove the second phase of the Iraq war could easily have been deflated by the Iraqi government simply stating that they had used all of their chemical weapons when they put down protests from their own people. An the evidence of the weapons was found, just downplayed by the political opponents of the president. Now there are birth defects in record numbers in Iraq near the various military bases, and the same people who claimed there were no Iraqi weapons are now trying to claim that the birth defects are the result of the United States using depleted uranium.

In Afghanistan, we had active supporters of a group that attacked the United States. I am not a hawk in general, I feel we should support out friends and defend ourselves. It is also not a point of who is president. I felt that President G.H.W Bush was completely wrong in sending our troops into Somalia, and set President Clinton up for failure. I thought that President Clinton was wrong to get involved in the Balkans, that was a European problem and the Europeans should have taken care of it. I praised President Obama for not taking action in Egypt. We may not like the group in charge, but it is not our problem. I criticized President Obama for intervening in Libya. Sure the guy we hated is gone, but what of the groups now competing for power? We have a dead ambassador, possibly killed with weapons that the United States provided.

The biggest problem with civil wars is that as an outsider, we do not know who the good guys are, or even if there are any good guys. We can generally identify the innocent victims by seeing who is dead and who has guns. We do not want other countries to tell us what government or leader we have, and I think that we should have the same stance for others. The original call for action in Syria was from the national press. The second wave came from the “internation community” basically people who wanted the United States to spend its blood and treasure on their fight. Now we have calls from Senator McCain and other in congress. In my opinion, they are just plain wrong and I hope that President Obama does not buckle under the pressure to act.

One of the oldest classic literary works is Oedipus. This three part play has been studies by academics and high school students for generations. As with last week’s article, I am taking inspiration from my son’s classics course assignment. This week, his class is finishing up reading and analyzing Oedipus. They are to choose a character and find an equivalent in another work. Beyond that equivalence, they are to create imagery of their own to show that they actually understand and can defend the characteristics they have chosen to analyze.

My son chose Oedipus as his character and the biblical Job as the equivalent. Neither character had personally done anything that would lead to punishment, yet both were punished by the gods. In the case of Oedipus, it was jealousy between gods and the crimes of his ancestors, both conditions that he was unaware of, that caused his suffering. In the case of Job, it is a rather odd bet between God and Lucifer, again without any knowledge or provocation from the victim. Both characters whine and complain about their fate, but neither actually blames the gods or God. They are both led through the trials and tribulations without any choices except the choice to honor the gods or not.

The imagery that my son chose was that of sheep. Sheep follow their herder both out of habit and necessity. The habit is the association with the herder from birth and not knowing any other life. The necessity is the herder leading the sheep to food, protecting them from predators and searching for them when they are lost or separated from the flock. In fact, domesticated sheep would not survive without the direct and constant intervention of the herders.

Many classic Greeks and modern religious people believe that the direct and constant shepherding is essential to their lives. Others live their lives either hoping that such attention is not needed or convinced that it is not provided. Regardless of your individual belief system, the story in Oedipus allows a certain amount of soul searching, as does the story of Job. If the shepherd purposely allows harm even if it is not fatal, is the shepherd actually doing his job? One could say that the Judeo-Christian God is better since Job gets some of what he lost back in the end, but in both cases the suffering does not help the victim at all. In the case of the Oedipus, the moral is “don’t upset the gods” and “the gods will punish you even if you have no clue why”. In the Job story, the moral seems to be “bad things happen, but if you believe in God, it will not be all bad”.

Building on the question from last week of what makes a classic a classic, consider the implications of a moral or teaching within a story. Most religious texts, fables and myths include morals and teaching. Any story has to have a point and many of the classics depend on moral imperatives to make that point.

My son is in high school and taking a classics course. He posed the question “what makes a classic a classic?” This is a difficult question to answer. Everyone has there own opinion. There have been many times I was told to read something because it was a classic, yet it seemed to be basically pulp fiction. To me, a classic has certain elements. First, the story must cross the boundaries of time. Although both are considered classics, it is far easier to understand the motives and characters in The Odyssey they those in The Great Gatsby. The reason for this is that The Odyssey was written assuming that the audience did not understand the motives and therefore they are explained in great detail. The Great Gatsby is written only to the audience of the time. What is obvious to the characters and writer are lost on the current audience.

Most people assume that what is popular during their lifetime will be popular for ever. The fact is that only a small portion of the art of a period moves into the future, the far greater proportion drops into obscurity. In music, for the 1700s, many people could identify Mozart, Bach, and Wagner, but few but experts would even know who Buxtehude was (he was Bach’s teacher). In more modern times, who from the 1960’s would have thought that Pink Floyd would still be selling out live performances in the 2010s but find it almost impossible to get a copy of a Guess Who song other than in an compilation.

With the visual arts the same is true. There were literally hundreds of portrait painters in the 1600s, but he Mona Lisa is still the most famous. True, some masterpieces have been lost due to left, natural disaster, war and the temporary nature of the medium. Today, visual classics could be in the work of the commercial advertiser, but we cannot know for sure until a significant about of time has passed.

The same timelessness is the driver for all forms of art, music, visual and literature. Style changes, what is popular changes, but when something can be shared across generations or even centuries, then it becomes a classic. The works of J. R. R. Tolkien could also be considered classics. They are the basic story of good versus evil with a small hero overcoming immense odds. All of this was born in the nightmare that was the trenches of World War I. It has the forms of a classic, not just because it is a favorite among the anachronistic communities, but because the work itself drew upon earlier classics. Tolkien was a professor of classics specializing in Nordic and ancient Anglo-Saxon literature. He wove a tale that included the details required to allow the reader to understand the circumstances of the characters, even after history had moved well beyond the period he was writing in.

The 19th century novelists also went to great lengths to give background information, thus allowing Jane Austin’s works to last as well. Similarly, Shakespeare wrote with the same push for completeness of story. In many of his works, specifically the histories, his audience was rather ignorant of the topic. Schooling was not what it is today, and some of his effort was to educate his audience as well as entertain. Some works are studied in classics courses more for the fame of the author than the durability of the work. Earnest Hemmingway is studied at length, but as time goes on, many of his works fail the test. They are specific to his time and generation. What is famous today may well fall to the wayside. For example, the Harry Potter novels are very popular and even have the classic good versus evil story line, but they will never stand the test of time. The same goes for the Twighlight series and other popular works. These are all good books, as can be seen by their current popularity, sales and movie deals. The bigger test will be if the next generation even hears about them.

So what makes a classic a classic? Only time will tell.

Last week, there were violent outbursts in the Muslim world.  The cause of this explosion was reported to be an internet video that is insulting to the Prophet.  This is hard to support since the video was weeks old and unknown to most of the world until an Egyptian television station broadcast it.  Somehow, this video provided an excuse to attack the United States, protesting at American facilities, storming American consulates and embassies, and killing of Americans including an Ambassador.  A video that was never condoned by any official of the United States, never broadcast by or in the United States, possibly not even made in America or by an American, is an excuse to burn and kill.  If this standard was held for all speech, then when Rachel Madow said that the Westborough Baptist Church was wrong to protest at fallen servicemen’s funerals, the Belgian Embassy should have been torched rockets should have been lobed into the economic mission of Nepal, after all, there is probably someone in those countries that do not like Baptists.

Last year I wrote an article defending the President for his decision to not intervene in Egypt.  I also wrote an article questioning his decision to intervene in Libya.  I also wrote an article questioning the media outcry to intervene in Syria.  I am grateful to the President for resisting that call for action.  In all of these situations, American intervention would have justified the people of those nations fighting America to keep their own identity.  The activities in Libya may actually be more closely related to our intervention than to the video.  The other outbursts show a culture that is too ready to be insulted and to ready to resort to violence at the slightest context.  That these events occurred on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the United States and the graffiti stating that there are thousands of Osamas attacking America would betray that the video is of no consequence.

So what is the reaction to these attacks?  First, the embassy in Egypt put out a message that the United States did not condone the video and condemned the violence in Libya.  The media only looked at the first part of this message, the right condemning it as weak and the left as an explanation of the violence.  Currently the United States is intervening.  We are arming the Marines who guard out embassies (why they guard without bullets is something that cannot be understood).  We are calling on host nations to protect our sovereignty and our people.  We are calling for the arrest and punishment of those people responsible for damage to property and life.  All of these are responsible reactions to the crimes that were committed against America.

What else can be done?  Evaluations will have to be made to test the intent of host nations.  If they are honestly trying to bring criminals to justice, then the United States should work with them.  If they appear to be supporting the criminals and concentrating on demand that the United States change their basic believes to shut down free speech, then other actions can be taken including cutting off financial support.  There have been calls for cutting the support without investigation, that would be irresponsible.  There has also been harassment of the supposed producer of the video, this is also irresponsible. My suggestion to anyone who is insulted by a video is DON’T WATCH IT.

There have been many comments on the President’s statement about businesses, that “you didn’t build that, someone else did.” The right wing talking heads claim that this is obviously a socialist statement that all is owned the collective. The left wing talking heads will defend the statement by rephrasing the lead up comments, that without the aid of government, the roads, electric, internet, educated workers would not be available for the success of the business. Both are correct and both are wrong.

Business of any kind is the action of human beings on raw materials to increase the value of a product and provide it to others for the benefit of the business. The raw material can be ideas, services or actual physical resources. Can you actually say that the government provided someone with the cleaning business that they have built up? Most would claim that the government has done almost the reverse with regulations. But again, could that business exist without the guarantees of property, the enforcement of laws and the security provide by the armed forces?

The government only took over the maintenance and building of roads in the last 100 years. Government education is also about 100 years old. Before that, individuals and businesses built the road that they needed and educated themselves through apprenticeships or the world of hard knocks. What about the raw materials? Most people do not understand that the ownership of resources has only been sure for about 300 years. Prior to the British commonwealth, the strongest person or group owned the resources, usually obtaining them through force and violence or the threat of violence.

Let’s look at the simplest form of a business, the small farm. The farmer claims some land, by his own strength, he plants seeds, raises animals and gathers his harvest. He can live off of his produce and trade is excess for goods he cannot make himself, such as better plows, stronger horses, etc. It all looks like the perfect growth plan. But he has to defend his land from predators, not all of them wild animals. If he is not well enough prepared, someone else will take what he has, and if he is fortunate enough to escape with his life, he may start the process all over again.

So both camps are right in that each can point to points that support their argument, but both are also wrong in stating it is an either/or argument. Without government programs, no business can succeed very long without becoming a government of their own (see the Mexican drug cartels or the British East India company). Claiming that the government has come claim over a business beyond the taxes paid to fund the services that make running the business easier and those government functions that allow the business to exist, is statism (whether you call if fascism, communism, socialism, despotism, does not really matter).

Now no part of this essay suggests that government has no part in business. Government is essential in providing security and restraint on business. If a business becomes too powerful, excesses can result that are harmful to the community that the government is expected to protect. In the United States, the government has stepped in to support the rights of workers from abuse. The government has also intervened when one business becomes too powerful within an industry, resulting in artificial increase in cost for what could be considered an essential product or service.

Recently (within the last 50 years), the effort to protect workers has migrated at times to punitive actions against businesses that are not for the good of the worker, but for the good of the individual political office holder or the organizational hierarchy of the labor organization. Also (within the last 25 years) the government has started to protect businesses that are “too big to fail” rather than harnessing those businesses into manageable sizes.

As examples, in the early 1900s, intervened to help workers including assisting in establishing work weeks and holidays. Now the emphasis is on increasing the minimum wage. The stated goal is to get people more money to spend, but the minimum wage is for entry level jobs, not full time careers. The result of increases in the minimum wage is the loss of entry level jobs until the market can adjust to absorb the increased costs. So the net result is a loss of opportunity, not an increase. But, there is a side effect. Most union contracts have a wage clause that pushes up the cost when the minimum wage is raised. The biggest effect is on contracts with government agencies resulting in a positive feedback.

Also in the early 1900s and as late as the 1970s, the government broke up large businesses. Standard Oil became 7 separate companies, Bell telephone was broken up, and railway crossings were regulated so that one company could not block common roads with trains to prevent their competitors from getting their raw materials. In 2010, the government was bailing out car companies and financial institutions.

As with any political action, there is some good and some bad for everyone involved. With unions, workers are protected, but now have to pay heavy dues to fund a top heavy highly paid administration. With unions, businesses cannot set the wages across and industry and have to provide certain benefits to lure skilled workers to their doors. With government interference, large businesses have been broken into smaller pieces for some short term pain for their customers, but overall better climate for all concerned. With government interference, large businesses have been “saved” to continue along flawed business plans that can only result in additional bailouts in the future.

The point of this essay is not to suggest that we return to the 1800s. The point is to expose that both the left and the right are both correct and incorrect in their interpretation of the role of government and business. We must have government protection of workers, communities, and other businesses. We must also avoid the idea of a collective. Each worker and business should be rewarded for the value of the work they do. It does not matter what you perceive the value of your effort is, only what the community determines the value is. If you have spent a lot of money on a college degree that will not get you a job, then you have prepared poorly. It is not the responsibility of the government or anyone else to assure that you effort is rewarded. If on the other hand, you build up a business that fills a need in the community, you should not be penalized. Restraint should only be applied if you are harming someone in the process of you effort.

Neil Armstrong

I worked at NASA during the Space Shuttle era. I missed the Apollo era mostly because of age. I was almost 5 years old when I stayed up all night to watch the first man on the moon. July 1969 and Neil Armstrong were major drivers that made me who I am today. Bad eyes prevented the ultimate goal of being an astronaut, but studying and dreaming lead me to a degree in Aerospace Engineering, a Cooperative Engineering experience at the Johnson Space Center, and the opportunity to support the space program with my talents and enthusiasm. All of this came from one man stepping onto the surface of the moon and stating “that’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

To be fair, twelve men walked on the moon, all of them are my heroes. Hundreds of men and women worked thousands of hours to build the machines that took them and trained them for the mission. Thousands more men and women developed the science and technology that led to those tools. Truly this was a case of standing on the shoulders of giants.

Neil had the opportunity to succeed and capitalized on that opportunity. It seems that all of history focused on him at that singular historic event. The science of rocketry had taken a thousand years to put a man made object in orbit around the Earth. A world war had been fought driving the final steps of that journey and setting up the industrial and technological infrastructure to allow the vehicle to be assembled. Colliding with these advancements was the conflict of two former allies in an all out race to achieve the goal of putting a man on the moon. Some would claim that only a democratic country like the United States could even try to go to the moon, and that may be true since we are the only ones who have sent men there to date.

Neil had trained to be a pilot in the military, but had retired to civilian life before becoming an astronaut. The civilian status added to his technical qualifications to make him the choice for that one small step. Were there others as qualified? Definitely. Were there any more qualified? Possibly, but it there were, they were not American Astronauts. When asked, he spoke of duty and responsibility, not of celebrity and renown. His humility was that extra part of his personality that made him by far the best choice for the job. He was supported by a talented team, including his pilot “Buzz” Aldrin. A lot of people cannot name the second man to walk on the moon, but Neil could not and would not forget him.

When I look up at the moon, I think of Neil and all of the others who walked on or orbited the moon. I still dream of doing so myself, although my age is making that dream less accessible. I also dream of the accomplishments yet to come. I dream of humanity’s (specifically America’s) return to the moon. I dream of man on Mars, the asteroids, and even the moons of Jupiter. I know we can do all of the things because we have already done so much. All we need is the will and drive to achieve, just like we did in the decade that was the 1960s.

Kurt Warner played in ArenaBall and NFL Europe before getting his NFL shot.

We are rapidly approaching a unique annual event in professional sports, the team down selects. Unlike other sports with the down select in the NFL, many athletes who were considered for the highest level of play will simply be unemployed. The NFL sets a specific limit of players who can be on an active roster or part of the practice squad (players owned by a team who can be called up to the active roster). As part of the preseason, that number decreases in steps to 75 players on August 27 and 53 players on August 31. Part of the purpose of preseason games is to determine who will be part of that 53 man squad for each team.

Unlike Baseball and Hockey, Football has on “farm” system. Some players can be assigned to NFL Europe to play over the summer, but are still subject to be cut with nowhere to go. They have to look in different leagues or the dream of playing professionally is over. In Baseball at least, if a player is having some issues, he can go down to the minors for a while to recover. If that recovery does not happen, then he is cut loose.

Part of the reason for the differences in sports is the limited number of games played per year in Football (16 regular season) compared to Baseball (162), Hockey (82) or Basketball (82). Part is because of the huge number of players available compare to teams. There are 117 Championship Series colleges (old Division 1A) each with up to 99 players. Even if we say there are an average of 60 and only a quarter of them are available each year, that is 15 x 117 or 1755. There are only 32 teams in the NFL which would provide 54 new players for each team, or the whole roster. On average, a player will be on an NFL team for 5 years after he makes the first cut.

This is not an all doom and gloom event. Many of the players who are given a chance during the preseason are just not ready for the big show. This is their opportunity to play under the light in the really big stadiums and where a real NFL uniform. Also, some plays, who appear to have little chance of making the team, shine is a way that no other venue would provide.

There are always stories of a player who seems to miss the chance and comes back to be a star. James Harrison is one such example. He was undrafted and actually cut by the Pittsburgh Steelers, signed by the Baltimore Ravens, cut again, then came back to be defensive player of the year (with the Steelers again). This is of course the exception rather than the rule.

Preseason in the NFL can be very exciting. Fans are looking for those players who can make their teams contenders. Players on the edge are trying to make the team. Everyone is making mistakes, either because they are new to the team or they are rusty from the off season. This year, there is a lock out of the normal referees and the NFL cannot take from the NCAA due to an agreement between the organizations. That kind of makes it even more of a free for all in the later stages of each game.

May the best players be found, all give their best efforts, and most important, pray that none of the players get hurt.

Over the weekend, the presumptive Republican nominee for President announced his perspective vice presidential running mate. Mitt Romney named Paul Ryan in a well staged introduction ceremony. The press were mostly upset that they did not figure out who it would be, although some claimed to have known and uncovered the choice before the announcement. I am not sure why this is important, but being first is apparently much more important than being right. I am surprised that more people did not claim advanced knowledge since so many names were bandied about including Ryan.

You may like the choice or you might not. You may be one of those people who would like the choice so long as an “R” followed the name, just as you many be someone who hates the choice for the same reason. One of the telling facts is that Ryan is one of the so called Tea Party candidates. He also presented a budget that would in theory balance the budget (a budget that the majority leader of the Senate refused to receive than stated that the house was not participating in the budget process).

So now, the pros and cons will be broadcast long and loud. If you want to know how Ryan is demon spawn, just tune in MSNBC. If you want to know that he was anointed by God to save the world, turn in to talk radio around noon. If you want to know what Ryan is running on, watch the full coverage from CNN or PBS. Don’t expect to learn anything from the advertisements, they will continue to define the positions of the opposition. Eventually what each candidate wants to do will float to the top.

So how important is this announcement? First and foremost, it provided a financial stimulus to the Romney campaign. It also provided the Obama campaign some much needed air time on all of the major networks. The President will not have the same opportunity since his running mate is assumed to be Biden again. Of course he could make some big news by choosing someone else at the convention.

It is actually unfortunate that the two major candidates are already set. This just extends the time the bitter partisan commentary must be endured. On the other hand we only have to here the sins of two sets of men.

The best way to find out about these candidates is to do your own research. If you have already made up your mind, you have little or no work to do. If you still are open for debate, check out each candidate’s web sites. If you let their opponent define their position, you have already made your choice. Once you have actually determined what the candidates claim that they want to do, you can do further research on what each of them have done in their careers. All four men have extensive public records to review. Always note the source. If it is the Huffington Post or other such site, you can be assured that the President is the hero and Romney is the arch-villain. If the source is World Net Daily or similar site, the President will be the anti-Christ and Romney the savior.

Please take the time to be informed. Please vote. This freedom and responsibility are what make our country great. It makes the common man equal to the elite and maintains our republic for our children.

When writing about politics, realize up front that you will seldom change the mind or convictions of anyone who reads your work. Your effort will either reinforce previously held or be dismissed as irrelevant. Political writing is truly a self gratifying activity. You may find that you have a wide readership that can be very rewarding. In this case, your ability to write well will determine your ability to grow that readership and possibly establish yourself as a respectable (or detested) commentator.

Most long political works are been praised and panned based almost only on the political stance of the author. Books written by political leaders have the most divisive effect. They are the one type of book that can be found in the discount resale book stores.

The purpose of political writing is to establish your point of view as the correct path to follow for the greater population. Sometimes it is to effect near term elections, sometimes to effect legislation through public opinion. Sometimes it is to explain away ill effects of actions taken or events that have occurred.

These books are not new. There have been plenty of recent works that could be discussed for accuracy, writing style, and purpose. Few of these works will be remembered in 20 years. The real political writings of worth emerge with time. Few people remember Barry Goldwater’s book Conscience of a Conservative or John F. Kennedy’s Why England Slept. They are both politically motivated books, both were written or re-released during a campaign.

But what about longer lasting political books? These require some historical grandness to stand the test of time. A modern example is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. Would it have been famous if he had never risen to power? There is also Das Kapital by Karl Marx. If the Russian revolution had failed, would anyone outside academia have cared? If we look further back, Julius Caesar wrote The Conquest of Gaul to justify disobeying orders and expanding a war for his own benefit.

You will notice that the books that remain are from writers who followed through having major historical impact. These examples are books that have survived because of brutal regimes, but that is not always the case.  The Federalist Papers were written to define the Untied States during its infancy.

Regardless of your motive, writing about politics can raise a lot of attention. The better you can express your ideas, the stronger those reactions can be. If you consistently write and can defend your opinions, you do have a small chance of swaying someone else.
 

Last time we discussed knowing your audience based primarily on age and concentrated on interactions within relationships and complexity of story. For this installment, the focus will be on action and the various groups (in general) that will appreciate levels and types of action.

When writing an action scene, try to picture it within your own mind. How would it play out on the movie screen? Is it graphic, or suspenseful? Will your character (and audience) be exhausted or relieved at the end of the action? Is this the end of some element of your story, perhaps even the life of a character? As with relationships and complex story lines, action is extremely age and gender specific.

Teenage boys will (in general) look for the impossible situation where survival is not likely (i.e. zombies and vampires, not the sparkly ones). Survival is not required and the action has to be hard hitting and continuous. Older men will gravitate towards action that requires the protection of innocents such as war or spy themes. Here survival of the character is optional, as long as the greater good is protected. Older women seem to love the mystery, whether a detective story or complex romance where the solution brings happy endings. For young readers, the action can be fast, but usually rather tame. These stories will generally have to show that following rules (listening to parents for example) saves the day.

If we take just a singe type of scene to dissect as an example the presentation can be demonstrated relatively clearly. The setting is D-Day of World War II. The main characters are Canadian soldiers who have just landed on the continent.

For young readers, the focus must be on why they are there. Members of the crew can be shown to be hurt, but death and the destructive power of the weapons will have to be downplayed. For the teenage boys, the death and destruction is exactly what is emphasized. For older men, the higher purpose is the goal. For this, the inner thought of the men, remembering their families, fear and camaraderie are the details that must be included. For older women, the aftermath and return will be the most important part. Reuniting with the loved ones who inspired the great and heroic deeds will be the high point of the story for them.

This is only one example. If the scene is a chase, even the type of chase will have to be carefully chosen. For younger readers, the vehicle of choice would be bicycles. For teenager, it could be high speed car, airplanes or even a foot race if it involves the undead. Older readers will want more realism. There will have to be a non-superhero reason for escape.

As we get ready for our children to go back to school, we are presented with great opportunities to write. That is of course after we complete the clean up of having the kids home all summer.