An acquaintance (I like to think 'friend', but we seldom agree) has recently advised me to 'stop my conspiracy thinking as we all die in the long run'. Damned hard advice to follow....for me, at least.
History, and I'm no serious history buff, seems full of conspiracy. It seems, by definition, that every time anyone seeks to gain, with the cooperation of others, that to which he is not necessarily entitled, by means of subterfuge, it qualifies as a conspiracy, particularly if it is outside the law and at expense to the welfare of a majority of the population.
Caesar seemed, by some accounts, to have earned a prominent place in Rome. Done in by a conspiracy.
Hitler would likely have had less success if his plans had been made in the open light of day. His planning required conspiracy.
More recently, the financial collapse seems to have been the brainchild of many bankers, brokers, and politicians who knew quite well that they were selling, literally, houses of cards.
With someone paying a broadcaster like Rush Limbaugh to do what amounts to preaching against the doctrines of ecology (and common sense), the continuation of national policy more in the interests of corporations than people, never-ending devotion to an oil-based economy, and the failure to notice the dangers of nuclear power, when options to all of these situations exist, even now, simply must be the result of people who conspire to gain wealth and power at the expense of humanity.
So, I ask, "Is my acquaintance really a better friend than I know? Is he saying there are no conspiracies, or is he saying it is pointless to speak out against such things because nothing, really, will ever change?"
I do know one thing. Mr Obama is not the president we elected. He is the president he conspired to be.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
That's life.
I've been a puppet, a pauper, a pirate,A poet, a pawn and a king.
....not to mention a farmer, a driver, a scooper, a washer,...about everything.
Most of us have worked a few minimum wage jobs in our time or, in the case of waitresses, less than minimum wage. Generally speaking, we were proud of what we earned, worked hard to do our jobs well, and enjoyed what we did, knowing as we did, it was temporary.
Now I've just watched "Inside Job"
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/
and, when elected, I will institute a new minimum wage law that will set the minimum wage locally for each county, borough, or whatever you have where you live. It will vary according to average cost of living across the area, and will include enough to buy or rent a place to live, transportation allowance enough to buy (only) an electric car or to take public transportation,
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/shai_agassi_on_electric_cars.html
food, health insurance, two weeks vacation a year, a savings account, a few extras, and a ticket to visit grandma in Schenectady once a year.
Opponents will say this will drive up inflation. I think it will do the opposite by keeping companies from hiring people to do work no one wants to do. If you can't afford an employee, maybe you should work yourself. It will also serve to keep the prices of homes, cars, and insurance down a bit...if big ticket items cost more, the COLA just goes up on the minimum wage.
I'll also put a strict limit on stock market investing. Companies will have to pay their employees (you know, those folks who do the work) what they formerly paid in dividends. No more getting free money just because you already have a lot of money. If you want to gamble, invest in a start-up, take a nice profit if it's successful, and get out of the way. No more leeches just because it's legal.
There will be a set maximum ratio of salary between workers and management, and bonuses paid to management will also be paid equally, percentage-wise, to employees. Think of the loyalty, quality workmanship, and feelings of personal identification with ones work that would result in such a system.
It's called 'having respect for employees and wage earners'. A very few companies have understood this over the years, and the respect went both ways.
Don't forget to vote outside the party lines next election. Mr. Obama sold us out to the bankers.
Friday, April 1, 2011
I don't get it.
I read, rather than watched, Obama's state of the union address, and totally ignored anyone who wanted to analyze it for me until after the reading was finished.
I liked most of what I heard...of course, I wanted to like it. I admit it. I'd like to see a president move us into a new age of fiscal and societal responsibility. Do I believe it?
Not yet.
Although I heard nothing about developing nuclear power plants, I was a bit disappointed to see, among the three anecdotes relating positive values of Americans, one that so blatantly showed one of the huge problems in the United States.
We had a story about the rebuilding of a small town that was destroyed by a tornado, a story about a poor young girl writing to the president, and this one just doesn't seem to fit right,....a story about a man who gives away a $60 million bonus.
Now, Mr. Abess is not the point of my diatribe. He is certainly to be commended for his selfless act, though, if he had need of the money, I suspect he would not have done as he did.
I have railed for years about a newspaper article that mentioned a bank president, 20+ years ago, receiving a one year bonus of $5 million dollars. And this bonus was twelve times that.
That's the part I just don't get. No one, and I repeat... no one, I have have known, seen, talked to, heard of, smelt, felt, touched, read about, or in any other way sensed, thought of, or experienced, has been worth this kind of money,... and the system that gives away that sort of 'free' cash is, in some way, flawed. Period.
Both these examples are banks. Sure, banks are in business. But if they have this kind of 'extra' money, they are charging rates that are too high, or are not paying back enough to the people loaning them money. Bank penalties have done nothing but climb, for years, far outstripping pay scales, the cost of living, and the cost of doing business.
Don't misunderstand me....I love the freedom to go into business and to succeed or fail, .... make a pile of money, if you can. But what I really love is a small business, or a large business that thinks small...cares about its people, shares its profits with the people who make it successful, treats the public as if they were respected customers, and charges what it needs to make a decent profit...no more, no less. Oh, yeah...and strives for quality.
Once a company, or corporation, begins to think it deserves special consideration for its 'needs', starts to meddle in government to the detriment of the consumer, and finds its products in need of excessive advertising to make a sale, its useful life should be considered over.
I'm all for new and tough regulations on the financial and every other industry. I'm all for kicking corporate donations out of politics. Let them do like the rest of us....vote. They are a small number of people buying out-sized consideration for their own world-changing game. The issues of the world are too important to trust to people buying political favor.
And I wonder, with corporations being guaranteed the right to donate to the politician of their choice, which constitutional right of the 'individual' will they try to claim next?......the right to bear arms?
There just seems to be way too much money that people at the 'top' don't really know what to do with, so they throw it at other people who, though probably very good at what they do, aren't really worth multi-millions. Seriously.
I admit it....this part of what Americans put up with, I just don't get.
I liked most of what I heard...of course, I wanted to like it. I admit it. I'd like to see a president move us into a new age of fiscal and societal responsibility. Do I believe it?
Not yet.
Although I heard nothing about developing nuclear power plants, I was a bit disappointed to see, among the three anecdotes relating positive values of Americans, one that so blatantly showed one of the huge problems in the United States.
We had a story about the rebuilding of a small town that was destroyed by a tornado, a story about a poor young girl writing to the president, and this one just doesn't seem to fit right,....a story about a man who gives away a $60 million bonus.
Now, Mr. Abess is not the point of my diatribe. He is certainly to be commended for his selfless act, though, if he had need of the money, I suspect he would not have done as he did.
I have railed for years about a newspaper article that mentioned a bank president, 20+ years ago, receiving a one year bonus of $5 million dollars. And this bonus was twelve times that.
That's the part I just don't get. No one, and I repeat... no one, I have have known, seen, talked to, heard of, smelt, felt, touched, read about, or in any other way sensed, thought of, or experienced, has been worth this kind of money,... and the system that gives away that sort of 'free' cash is, in some way, flawed. Period.
Both these examples are banks. Sure, banks are in business. But if they have this kind of 'extra' money, they are charging rates that are too high, or are not paying back enough to the people loaning them money. Bank penalties have done nothing but climb, for years, far outstripping pay scales, the cost of living, and the cost of doing business.
Don't misunderstand me....I love the freedom to go into business and to succeed or fail, .... make a pile of money, if you can. But what I really love is a small business, or a large business that thinks small...cares about its people, shares its profits with the people who make it successful, treats the public as if they were respected customers, and charges what it needs to make a decent profit...no more, no less. Oh, yeah...and strives for quality.
Once a company, or corporation, begins to think it deserves special consideration for its 'needs', starts to meddle in government to the detriment of the consumer, and finds its products in need of excessive advertising to make a sale, its useful life should be considered over.
I'm all for new and tough regulations on the financial and every other industry. I'm all for kicking corporate donations out of politics. Let them do like the rest of us....vote. They are a small number of people buying out-sized consideration for their own world-changing game. The issues of the world are too important to trust to people buying political favor.
And I wonder, with corporations being guaranteed the right to donate to the politician of their choice, which constitutional right of the 'individual' will they try to claim next?......the right to bear arms?
There just seems to be way too much money that people at the 'top' don't really know what to do with, so they throw it at other people who, though probably very good at what they do, aren't really worth multi-millions. Seriously.
I admit it....this part of what Americans put up with, I just don't get.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Democrats, Republicans, and the 5 year plan
Way too many topics in this title! But the point here is not an in-depth analysis. It is, rather, an attempt to recognize the forces at work and see them in a bit of logic.
Few of us who voted for Mr. Obama BELIEVED he really meant for there to be change. It was the same scenario when Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura, a pro wrestler, to the governorship. He was voted in NOT because people truly believed in him, but as a message to our politicians that 'business as usual' was getting tiresome. We wanted something better, and we knew it had been a long time since anyone in government had tried to supply 'better' without getting neutered by the system.
As for Obama, a president who spends trillions to bail out corporate banking while executives walk away with large salaries and bonuses, and a president who backs nuclear power plants whose waste cannot be safely disposed, is either caught in the web of American politics or never meant for real change to take place.
I've long thought I was closer to being a Democrat than a Republican but, like many Americans, I've come to think there is little difference in what gets accomplished by either party. So what's the point?
My previous post about the 5 year plans created by China was intended as food for thought and not as an argument for communism. However, I would like to point out a couple of obvious things about our 'democracy' that are holding us back as a nation dedicated to progress. It may seem like I am attacking the Republicans, but I hope it will be seen that it is really just intended to improve the state of the nation.
Republicans of my acquaintance seem to contradict themselves. They ask for smaller government, less regulation of business, and a free hand to pursue wealth as properly befits a market economy. They go on to say that government inefficiency is a major evil in society and that, if the government wishes to supply a service, it is best left to the business world to supply the service as they will do so more efficiently. It seems to follow logically that ... government should be run more like a business.
Wait a minute, though. Running government like a business, in the interest of efficiency, economy, and goals means a top down hierarchy, concentrated power that must be obeyed once decisions are made, and very importantly, maybe most importantly.... a business plan.
How can we have concentrated power, efficiency, economy of effort and wealth, and goals for the future in a two party system that seemingly passes power back and forth faster than a ping pong ball changes sides of the table?
Yes, folks, you heard it here first. Ping-pong-power-politics.
Now, when I look at the problem in this light, I am a Republican. Our country needs a business plan in the government....but not just directed at business. It needs to address business, political reform, environmental protection, ownership and usage of natural resources, and a host of issues that I can't even comprehend, much less explain.
One of the first and largest issues such a plan would have to address is "just who is the boss here?". Anyone who objectively looks at much of the modern western world can recognize that big business considers politics to be one of the many tools in its toolbox. Everyone knows beyond any doubt that businesses donate to politicians whom they believe will further their interests. All very legal, and even reinforced in a recent US Supreme Court decision guaranteeing corporations the right to do this.
I'm sorry, but I find this bass-ackwards. Doesn't it seem more logical for business to be a tool in the hands of a government acting in the interests of the people, rather than for the government of the people to be a tool in the hands of business?
Corporations benefit greatly by continued inefficiency in government. They perpetuate the myth that pro-business government is good for employment. A government without power over business allows them to continue to operate in their own interest. Yes, they do provide jobs and in this sense, the myth is true. But there is money to be made, employment to be created, and improvement in the state of the world to be had in creating industry that serves the people more than it serves corporate profit.
Corporations operating outside of government regulation follow only the whims of the market, whims often created by powerful and expensive advertising campaigns ... and their own plan to survive in the "survival of the fittest" world of capitalism. This survival is ever dependent on making more money, gaining more power, controlling more aspects of their environment to ensure their continued success. In short, operating primarily in their own best interest. The jobs they create lure people into backing pro-business government without telling them that the this solution to unemployment is, ultimately, a short term solution in an ever evolving society that needs to take into account the fact that, as technology increases, there will always be less work next year than there was last year.
The fact is, we need a lot more than a 5 year plan to face the challenges of limited resources, pollution, food production, over-population, and many more. Business will seldom act outside of its own goals unless it does so because we demand social responsibility.
So....what'll it be? Government the tool of business, or business the tool of the people?
Few of us who voted for Mr. Obama BELIEVED he really meant for there to be change. It was the same scenario when Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura, a pro wrestler, to the governorship. He was voted in NOT because people truly believed in him, but as a message to our politicians that 'business as usual' was getting tiresome. We wanted something better, and we knew it had been a long time since anyone in government had tried to supply 'better' without getting neutered by the system.
As for Obama, a president who spends trillions to bail out corporate banking while executives walk away with large salaries and bonuses, and a president who backs nuclear power plants whose waste cannot be safely disposed, is either caught in the web of American politics or never meant for real change to take place.
I've long thought I was closer to being a Democrat than a Republican but, like many Americans, I've come to think there is little difference in what gets accomplished by either party. So what's the point?
My previous post about the 5 year plans created by China was intended as food for thought and not as an argument for communism. However, I would like to point out a couple of obvious things about our 'democracy' that are holding us back as a nation dedicated to progress. It may seem like I am attacking the Republicans, but I hope it will be seen that it is really just intended to improve the state of the nation.
Republicans of my acquaintance seem to contradict themselves. They ask for smaller government, less regulation of business, and a free hand to pursue wealth as properly befits a market economy. They go on to say that government inefficiency is a major evil in society and that, if the government wishes to supply a service, it is best left to the business world to supply the service as they will do so more efficiently. It seems to follow logically that ... government should be run more like a business.
Wait a minute, though. Running government like a business, in the interest of efficiency, economy, and goals means a top down hierarchy, concentrated power that must be obeyed once decisions are made, and very importantly, maybe most importantly.... a business plan.
How can we have concentrated power, efficiency, economy of effort and wealth, and goals for the future in a two party system that seemingly passes power back and forth faster than a ping pong ball changes sides of the table?
Yes, folks, you heard it here first. Ping-pong-power-politics.
Now, when I look at the problem in this light, I am a Republican. Our country needs a business plan in the government....but not just directed at business. It needs to address business, political reform, environmental protection, ownership and usage of natural resources, and a host of issues that I can't even comprehend, much less explain.
One of the first and largest issues such a plan would have to address is "just who is the boss here?". Anyone who objectively looks at much of the modern western world can recognize that big business considers politics to be one of the many tools in its toolbox. Everyone knows beyond any doubt that businesses donate to politicians whom they believe will further their interests. All very legal, and even reinforced in a recent US Supreme Court decision guaranteeing corporations the right to do this.
I'm sorry, but I find this bass-ackwards. Doesn't it seem more logical for business to be a tool in the hands of a government acting in the interests of the people, rather than for the government of the people to be a tool in the hands of business?
Corporations benefit greatly by continued inefficiency in government. They perpetuate the myth that pro-business government is good for employment. A government without power over business allows them to continue to operate in their own interest. Yes, they do provide jobs and in this sense, the myth is true. But there is money to be made, employment to be created, and improvement in the state of the world to be had in creating industry that serves the people more than it serves corporate profit.
Corporations operating outside of government regulation follow only the whims of the market, whims often created by powerful and expensive advertising campaigns ... and their own plan to survive in the "survival of the fittest" world of capitalism. This survival is ever dependent on making more money, gaining more power, controlling more aspects of their environment to ensure their continued success. In short, operating primarily in their own best interest. The jobs they create lure people into backing pro-business government without telling them that the this solution to unemployment is, ultimately, a short term solution in an ever evolving society that needs to take into account the fact that, as technology increases, there will always be less work next year than there was last year.
The fact is, we need a lot more than a 5 year plan to face the challenges of limited resources, pollution, food production, over-population, and many more. Business will seldom act outside of its own goals unless it does so because we demand social responsibility.
So....what'll it be? Government the tool of business, or business the tool of the people?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
China's 5 year plans
This is, in no way, intended to defend communism, nor to promote either capitalism or democracy. The goal is to make you think just a bit about what you believe.
It can, at times, be difficult to get a photo without working to find an angle that excludes construction, repairs, or places that need one or the other. This says two things very plainly.
1. There is a lot that needs doing.
2. There is a lot being done.
Things are being done at a pretty incredible rate. The feel of China has something of what I imagine the USA to have been in the early stages of our economic boom.
My questions for you are:
Can the United States, with it ping-pong-power politics, ever do something so logical as to formulate a 5-year plan?
Given 3P politics, could a single administration put together such a plan in 4 years that would not have its primary goals so compromised as to be virtually worthless?
Are Americans so blind (and, perhaps, arrogant) that they are unable to admit there MAY yet be some things they could learn from the rest of the world?
I think...No, No, and, I hope,...NO!
It can, at times, be difficult to get a photo without working to find an angle that excludes construction, repairs, or places that need one or the other. This says two things very plainly.
1. There is a lot that needs doing.
2. There is a lot being done.
Things are being done at a pretty incredible rate. The feel of China has something of what I imagine the USA to have been in the early stages of our economic boom.
My questions for you are:
Can the United States, with it ping-pong-power politics, ever do something so logical as to formulate a 5-year plan?
Given 3P politics, could a single administration put together such a plan in 4 years that would not have its primary goals so compromised as to be virtually worthless?
Are Americans so blind (and, perhaps, arrogant) that they are unable to admit there MAY yet be some things they could learn from the rest of the world?
I think...No, No, and, I hope,...NO!
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Disclaimer and driving in China
I'm in China, making observations about the Chinese. Nothing is meant to offend, but probably will, which will probably be the case when I start making observations about the Americans, the Brits, Africans, and the Arabs. The world is often a laughing matter, let's enjoy it.
Have you ever happened across a child on a busy street? He/she will be totally involved in some activity of great interest, moving forward to see better,....and suddenly, without warning or taking any care to avoid anyone around, reverse directions and cause all within range to make adjustments to keep from injuring the tiny, unsuspecting soul.
This is how the Chinese drive...in China.
As there seem to be no traffic 'laws', only traffic 'suggestions', some of the rules of the road might be (who knows?) as follows.
Turn signals exist, but are apparently very vulnerable to wear and tear. The number of people I have observed using them in our seven months residence here can be numbered in single digits. Entirely optional.
Merging lanes is done by looking nonchalantly into a mirror, it matters little which one as the information it contains is irrelevant, and slowly moving in the direction you wish, regardless of the amount of traffic that might be in your way. If anyone perceives you are inconveniencing them more than they are concerned about doing so to you, they will politely honk their horn, which you may ignore.
If, however, they honk less politely, you should, at least, consider showing some concern.
Left hand turns across traffic, again, do not require use of signals. Nor do they require any actual opportunity, to make said turn, to exist. All that matters is that, like doing a merge, you state your intentions slowly enough that people can figure out what you wish to do. As many as possible will do all they can to cut you off and get by before you impede their progress, but once you have succeeded in pushing far enough into opposing traffic to make their progress impossible...they will stop for you. Gently...almost lovingly.
You are, most likely, getting the idea, but one more example may be enlightening. Passing other vehicles is an activity that is also unburdened by traffic laws, lane considerations, or anything else that might resemble a real guideline. You may pass on the right, left, against oncoming traffic, and at any speed you care to risk. What matters most is....'Were you there first?'.
The result of this system gives a US citizen the feeling of driving in a nation of teenage drivers...the 'me first' mentality which sometimes exists in the supermarket line, the bank line, the 'any' line, does overflow into driving.
What is interesting is that it results in as few accidents as it does, and seems to result in little or no 'road rage'. Drivers are intensely aggressive about trying to get ahead of every single car they can manage. Yet, failure to do so is handled philosophically. I have yet to see or hear a driver do more than mutter a bit over some minor defeat which would have Americans flipping out and flipping off.
So come on over, learn some Chinese, get a driver's license. Put some fun back in your life.
Have you ever happened across a child on a busy street? He/she will be totally involved in some activity of great interest, moving forward to see better,....and suddenly, without warning or taking any care to avoid anyone around, reverse directions and cause all within range to make adjustments to keep from injuring the tiny, unsuspecting soul.
This is how the Chinese drive...in China.
As there seem to be no traffic 'laws', only traffic 'suggestions', some of the rules of the road might be (who knows?) as follows.
Turn signals exist, but are apparently very vulnerable to wear and tear. The number of people I have observed using them in our seven months residence here can be numbered in single digits. Entirely optional.
Merging lanes is done by looking nonchalantly into a mirror, it matters little which one as the information it contains is irrelevant, and slowly moving in the direction you wish, regardless of the amount of traffic that might be in your way. If anyone perceives you are inconveniencing them more than they are concerned about doing so to you, they will politely honk their horn, which you may ignore.
If, however, they honk less politely, you should, at least, consider showing some concern.
Left hand turns across traffic, again, do not require use of signals. Nor do they require any actual opportunity, to make said turn, to exist. All that matters is that, like doing a merge, you state your intentions slowly enough that people can figure out what you wish to do. As many as possible will do all they can to cut you off and get by before you impede their progress, but once you have succeeded in pushing far enough into opposing traffic to make their progress impossible...they will stop for you. Gently...almost lovingly.
You are, most likely, getting the idea, but one more example may be enlightening. Passing other vehicles is an activity that is also unburdened by traffic laws, lane considerations, or anything else that might resemble a real guideline. You may pass on the right, left, against oncoming traffic, and at any speed you care to risk. What matters most is....'Were you there first?'.
The result of this system gives a US citizen the feeling of driving in a nation of teenage drivers...the 'me first' mentality which sometimes exists in the supermarket line, the bank line, the 'any' line, does overflow into driving.
What is interesting is that it results in as few accidents as it does, and seems to result in little or no 'road rage'. Drivers are intensely aggressive about trying to get ahead of every single car they can manage. Yet, failure to do so is handled philosophically. I have yet to see or hear a driver do more than mutter a bit over some minor defeat which would have Americans flipping out and flipping off.
So come on over, learn some Chinese, get a driver's license. Put some fun back in your life.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Engrish
My traveling partner, and wife (Paula, and...uh.... Paula)...and I are now in China for a year teaching English, and I have, for some reason, avoided recording any impressions other than occasional e-mails to friends. During many other trips it has been fairly easy to jot down some daily thoughts, but here it has been more difficult.
Perhaps I burned out on journal-keeping while on the Appalachian Trail, or find too many things to think about each day, or wonder at my own possible audacity in commenting on the oldest civilization known to man. Any and all of these could contribute, but now...I'm off my dead ass, and will try to toss off a few notes of observation without getting too bogged down.
Gotta love the Engrish!
We wondered at this SO much early in this trip. SO easy to ask someone before committing this to being viewed by thousands of people, SO easy to ask before spending lots of money getting hundreds or thousands of copies of something printed and scattered across the country. It seemed the Chinese were too proud to ask for help.
Maybe they are....or maybe there are other possible explanations. Like...'Hey, no big deal, as long as it's understood.' Maybe some of us 'good' students who took grammar, spelling, and punctuation way too seriously (because we were good at it) need to just lighten up a bit...eh?
Perhaps I burned out on journal-keeping while on the Appalachian Trail, or find too many things to think about each day, or wonder at my own possible audacity in commenting on the oldest civilization known to man. Any and all of these could contribute, but now...I'm off my dead ass, and will try to toss off a few notes of observation without getting too bogged down.
Gotta love the Engrish!
We wondered at this SO much early in this trip. SO easy to ask someone before committing this to being viewed by thousands of people, SO easy to ask before spending lots of money getting hundreds or thousands of copies of something printed and scattered across the country. It seemed the Chinese were too proud to ask for help.
Maybe they are....or maybe there are other possible explanations. Like...'Hey, no big deal, as long as it's understood.' Maybe some of us 'good' students who took grammar, spelling, and punctuation way too seriously (because we were good at it) need to just lighten up a bit...eh?
Introduction
Many would find pointless the decision to record my thoughts and impressions as coming from a source less than learned, by many standards...perhaps even my own, and possibly justly described as rife with naivete and an idealism more appropriate to a college freshman. To this I can only answer that I find a certain satisfaction in thinking I may have retained enough faith in humanity, in the face of past and current events, to remain idealistic. Whether this be due to continually reading about many educated and intelligent people working hard to improve the state of the world, to an unadulterated bull-headedness, or to some combination thereof, I can only make an inaccurate estimate.
The former paragraph would be devoted to the world at large. As to those of the population, severely limited in number, who actually know my background, the common complaint might be in defining myself as a farm boy. None could challenge the fact of living my first four years on a tiny Iowa farm, but may bridle at the idea that, having then moved into the metropolis of Grand River (pop. ~300), my point of view may have become tainted by city life.
As the son of the postmaster, I escaped not only our outdoor toilet, but slopping the hogs, shearing the sheep, pulling the heads from chickens, endless rounds of the fields on a tractor, and many other of the countless joys of country life, retaining only the light exercise of hauling bales of hay to be placed in the barn or in outdoor stacks...one possible avenue for young men desiring monetary gain during the summer months and, in my case, the means of paying college expenses through graduation...this having the added advantage, in my mind, of granting a certain freedom and individualism in not working for some outside employer though, of course, there were many as we traveled from farm to farm. Odd...and telling, how we tell ourselves what we most want to hear.
To keep this introduction within the scope of modern attention spans, I'll wrap it up with a brief warning. Though small town life might seem more a breeding ground of conservatism, it seems to have, in more than a few cases, been equally capable of spawning a certain amount of liberalism...perhaps my own. Some will accuse me of this, socialism, communism, anti-capitalism, class prejudice, and idiocy. I only hope to escape that which I see as the greatest evil...the inability to try to see another point of view. You are certainly free to judge, hopefully not too harshly.
The former paragraph would be devoted to the world at large. As to those of the population, severely limited in number, who actually know my background, the common complaint might be in defining myself as a farm boy. None could challenge the fact of living my first four years on a tiny Iowa farm, but may bridle at the idea that, having then moved into the metropolis of Grand River (pop. ~300), my point of view may have become tainted by city life.
As the son of the postmaster, I escaped not only our outdoor toilet, but slopping the hogs, shearing the sheep, pulling the heads from chickens, endless rounds of the fields on a tractor, and many other of the countless joys of country life, retaining only the light exercise of hauling bales of hay to be placed in the barn or in outdoor stacks...one possible avenue for young men desiring monetary gain during the summer months and, in my case, the means of paying college expenses through graduation...this having the added advantage, in my mind, of granting a certain freedom and individualism in not working for some outside employer though, of course, there were many as we traveled from farm to farm. Odd...and telling, how we tell ourselves what we most want to hear.
To keep this introduction within the scope of modern attention spans, I'll wrap it up with a brief warning. Though small town life might seem more a breeding ground of conservatism, it seems to have, in more than a few cases, been equally capable of spawning a certain amount of liberalism...perhaps my own. Some will accuse me of this, socialism, communism, anti-capitalism, class prejudice, and idiocy. I only hope to escape that which I see as the greatest evil...the inability to try to see another point of view. You are certainly free to judge, hopefully not too harshly.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)