A Solemn Day

“Four score and seven years ago ...”

The words, known to most school children and their parents, are the opening words of the Gettysburg Address, probably the best know speech by any American. The world will long remember them.

Fewer of the children and adults know that they were uttered by President Abraham Lincoln
on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Pennsylvania. The battlefield was filled with the graves of “who here gave their lives that that nation might live.” A year later, on July 4^th, 1864, those graves were decorated with flowers by local women, and that practice was later adopted in the form of a national holiday, Decoration Day – which we now observe as “Memorial Day,” although the character of the holiday has changed completely.

The decoration of graves by family members is an ancient custom, although the practice originated to memorialize single individuals. There is dispute about the origin of its observance as a recollection of the deaths of the numerous soldiers lost during the Civil War, but the practice certainly began in several locations before the Commander-in Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic (the GAR, an organization of Union Army veterans), General John Logan, called for the establishment of a national holiday – Decoration Day – to commemorate the sacrifices made by so many. In that form it was first held on May 30^th in 1868.ⁱ Although the practice was not at that time an official holiday, it was taken up by localities and states and, soon, the Federal Government.

The observances varied from time to time. Decoration of the graves was an important feature, as were the speeches that recalled the sacrifices of the dead and the atrocities of those who had opposed whichever side was favored by the speaker. The flag was lowered to half-staff and memorials were held for the fallen. In some locations parades were held.

Subsequently, as national military cemeteries were established, and as more died in other wars, military observances became more formalized and more ritualized and, in 1967, the name of the holiday was changed to Memorial Day. Although the name had been adopted in some locations earlier, it was changed under Federal law at that time. As both the old and the new names testify, it was as solemn day – one of remembrance and appreciation.

Things changed, however, the following year with the passage of the Uniform Monday Holiday Act which changed Memorial Day, along with Washington's Birthday, Columbus Day, and Veterans Day,ⁱⁱ into Monday holidays near their original dates. This created three-day weekends for Federal workers, and soon for others as well. And those holidays, memorials of our history, became joyous celebrations, accompanied by paid leave and barbecues. In the case of Decoration/Memorial Day, what had been a solemn day, a day to remember those who died preserving our freedom, became a time of celebration, picnics, automobile races, and the unofficial beginning of summer. The politicians, primarily for PR purposes, continued to pay lip-service to the original intent, but it was clear that the day had as little meaning for them as it did for most Americans. The only ones who cared about the meaning of the holiday were those who had lost friends or family members. Most of the rest of us viewed it as a day off with pay.

But whenever we observe the day we must remember that it originated as a day to decorate the graves of those who fought and died for us, and became a day of memorial for them. They may not have fought willingly, they may have opposed the wars in which they were called upon to take part, but because of them are free and we are alive. Perhaps we, too, questioned some of the choices our government made, and would have preferred another form of conflict resolution, but we chose the government and authorized it to make decisions for us. We are responsible, and we owe our heroes our respect.

We can't go back. We are alive and they are dead. We can argue about whether those deaths were necessary, but we cannot change the facts. We cannot bring them back. We may take a day off from work and celebrate, we may have a barbecue or go on a picnic. But if we forget that they didn't get a day off, and their action was no picnic, then we deny our own history. We deny our national goals, converting patriotism to frivolity, and the sacrifice of others to a day off for us.

We have an obligation: we must continue to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us. We must remember. For if we do not, our entire raison d'être perishes from the earth.

 

 

 

 

I        May 30^th was chosen, according to government sources, because that corresponds to a time when many flowers are in bloom and can be used for the purpose. The date does not commemorate any specific event.

ii       By 1975, in response to veterans' pressure groups, Veterans Day observance was returned to November 11^th, the day of the armistice that ended the First World War. Even so, some communities observe it on other dates and irrespective of the day of the week that November 11^th falls, a day off from work is arranged for Federal employees, and some others. For many of them the meaning of the holiday is less significant than the time off.

The Devil Made Me Do It

One of the most memorable lines from “West Side Story” comes during the song “Gee, Officer Krupke.” Proudly declared by Riff a gang member, the words, in defense of his antisocial behavior, were “I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.” We're entertained by the wordplay and the concept it conveys, but we also laugh a little nervously, both because we know he believes what he's saying,ⁱ and because we're concerned about a society in which criminal behavior may be excused because of “mitigating” conditions.

One of the more frightening ideas, and one we know to be true, is that people become set in their ways early in life. And the “ways” are, in large part, ones they've learned from others. Over the years we've learned a lot about human behavior and the factors that influence it, recognizing that there are many we're powerless to control. One of the most important of the factors relates to the people around us and their views.

Another song sheds light on the problem. The words are by Oscar Hammerstein II, and they come from “South Pacific.” “You've got to be taught” points out the effectiveness of early education. “You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or seven or eight.” And it is during this period that we poison our children, while at the same time warning them about playing with the “wrong” friends.

Riff, apparently, was conditioned both at home and in the schoolyard, and he continued to associate with those who would reinforce the dangerous ideas he had already learned. Having been taught the behavior he displays, he should not, in a modern country like ours, be held responsible for it – or at least the faulty upbringing and the lessons it fed him should be viewed as extenuating circumstances and excuse any punishment due him. At least that's what he believes. Certainly such a childhood is just as likely to cause deviations from civilized normsⁱⁱ as Twinkies.ⁱⁱⁱ

There are at least two bottom lines to this situation: one is that no one is responsible for anything he does. It's not his fault. There is always an outside influence like a person or a condition^iv of some sort that is the guilty party.^v It's certainly not him. And the second is that early childhood education is largely responsible for people's behavior later in life. The song from “South Pacific” tells us what we must be taught: “to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught.” Children taught to hate and fear^vi will hate and fear. And chances are good that they'll inculcate in their children the same biases and paranoia.

Without spending unwarranted time on how disdain for responsibility affects the children, a subject which I may address in a future post, there are a few suggestions I'd like to make which may, at least to a degree, mitigate the situation. Thus all include education.^vii Certainly there are other treatments which should be applied, but for the sake of this essay I want to limit my thoughts to the education.

Parents – or future parents – should be taught parenting skills. No such subject was taught in the “olden” days,^viii but in our modern urban society, these skills seem lacking in many of the people who, willingly or otherwise, become parents. It is likely that not too many will participate voluntarily, but this kind of education can be made a part of the package that includes the spectrum of “entitlements” proffered to those who require them, and can be a condition for the receipt of other aid.^ix Apart from parenting, adults should be taught a variety of other subjects which directly involve their own lives and those of their children. These may include nutrition, sex education, civics and money management. The level of the teaching should be tailored to the group involved.

Classes can be given in a variety of places – public buildings where benefits are distributed, social centers, schools offering adult education, and even prisons. It would be naїve to believe that all who are urged or forced to attend them will do so, or that all who attend will benefit from them, but to the degree that attention is paid to the material offered, there is likely to be some improvement in behavior and some help for the children of participants.

Similar material, adjusted for the age of the students, should become part of the curriculum of both public and private^x schools. Giving the classes in several grades will emphasize the importance of the material presented and allow for the elevation of the level of the education as the children get older.^xi Much of this material is already being presented but repackaging it in the form of family skills may make it more interesting to some of the students. And, as is true with all teaching, its repetition improves the likelihood of its retention.

Bad parents treat their children in a way that is likely to turn them into bad parents as well. It's the curse that keeps on cursing. The profits society can realize from children who are carefully taught the right lessons cannot be overstated. Whatever can be done to break the cycle will provide benefits and cost savings that are certain to exceed the costs incurred in the programs that yield them. Perhaps it will help both the deprived and the depraved.

Next episode: “The Great Debate” – It ain't what you say but the way that you say it.

 

 

 

 

 

I        And maybe we do too. We know for certain that he'll make use of the free pass he expects.

ii       Which is certainly not to suggest that something is proper because it is a societal norm.

iii      Actually Dan White didn't claim that the Twinkies and other sweets he ate made him murder George Moscone and Harvey Milk, but that his taste for them resulted from depression (indeed, they proved that he was depressed) and the depression lowered his responsibility for whatever he did.

iv      That includes issues as diverse as genetics, poverty, life experiences, and Twinkies.

v        I'll deal with that issue at a future date.

vi       A good example is the inclusion in textbooks supplied to Palestinian children by their hate-filled elders, a large body of anti-Israeli (and anti-semitic) propaganda which amplifies the malevolence they are taught elsewhere. In general, prejudice is learned at home, but school and teachers may influence it greatly – as may biased friends.

vii      Since I'm finessing the “guilt” issue.

viii     Nor did it seem necessary. Perhaps we ignored the issue, or perhaps people were more civil in a less advanced civilization.

ix       That is not to suggest that those who do not require welfare don't need better training in parenting skills – only that we have less leverage to involve them.

x        That may be one way to get through to those not requiring welfare payments.

xi       Age-appropriate videos could even be shown at Day Care Centers in order to give small children a head start.

The Bible And American Law

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the permissibility of murder in other societies, and the possible benefits of killing of some people in our own. You might favor the death penalty and euthanasia as examples. Or, perhaps, the killing of malformed newborns. In all likelihood the municipality, citing the first amendment and the right to express your opinion, would grant permission.

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the evil of murder in other societies, and the harm that would result from the killing of innocent people in our own. You might decry abortion as one such example. In all likelihood the municipality would cite the first amendment, and the declare the impermissibility of promoting a religious agenda in a property run by the government, and would refuse to grant permission.

If someone stole a car he would be prosecuted for larceny because theft is illegal, and if you presented evidence that would help in the conviction you'd be praised as an upstanding citizen.

If someone performed a homosexual act he would be viewed as a an individual legally exercising his rights. If he declared it proudly he would be considered as brave in exposing himself to public opinion. If you argued against his actions you would be denounced as a religious bigot.

And the person who lies while testifying at a trial will, if caught, be tried, himself, for perjury. False testimony, as we all know, is against the law.

But whoever calls a pagan an enemy of G-d's will, will be sanctioned for hate speech. And if he touches the pagan – perhaps offering a reassuring pat on the shoulder – he has committed assault and it is a hate crime. Opposition to paganism is religious oppression, and those who speak out against it are considered to be in violation of the Constitution. They are sectarian extremists.

Opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and paganism are certainly denounced in the Bible, but so are murder, theft, and perjury. In fact, murder, theft, and perjury are forbidden in the Ten Commandmentsⁱ, and should certainly be recognized as religious principles.ⁱⁱ In reality, most of those ideas, and other aspects of what we see as “right” and “wrong,” are important themes in religious works. Yet some we incorporate into the law of the land, and some are prohibited as taboo topics, even for discussion.

Interestingly, it's not just atheists who oppose the discussion of “religious” ideas in public placesⁱⁱⁱ since many religious supporters of the Constitution will cite the “wall of separation” between Church and State and the Constitutional ban on the support of religion by the government. They fear that if such discussion should take place it would lead to the support of a religion, or religion in general, by the state in violation of the First Amendment. It's “slippery slope” argument – the camel's nose concern – the “domino theory” masquerading as Constitutional Law. It's the presumption that the majority can't be relied on to distinguish between right and wrong. People, however virtuous their intent, aren't to be trusted. And the intent of the writers of the founding documents cannot dictate our interpretation of them.

But the laws we follow are of human origin. Whether they were inspired by the Bible or another religious text, or even if they sprang fully formed from the head of some lawmaker, they have the same religious heritage as the concept of “Creationism.” The intent of the proponents of both ideas is the same – to govern human behavior using “just” criteria.^iv Only it is humans who decide which religious laws are “just” and which reflect bigotry. And it reflects our intent now^v rather than that of those who lived in earlier centuries.

That path, however, isn't invariably followed, and sometimes we loudly declare the intent of our predecessors to be a critical factor in deciding the validity of an idea. It is such intent that keeps us from imposing the will of the majority on the minority – sometimes.^vi And the “wall of separation” of which Jefferson wrote in a letter^vii in 1802, is considered a basic Constitutional principle by the Supreme Court, even though Jefferson played no part in the writing of the Constitution and wasn't even in the country at the time.^viii But his intent is considered as relevant to an understanding of that document and our current interpretation of it. There is less sympathy for his views regarding states' rights: that a state could overrule laws passed by Congress that it considered unauthorized by the Constitution.^ix “Intent” is a deciding factor – but only if it supports your preconceived notions.

Some of the Ten Commandments ceased to be religious precepts when they resonated with lawmakers, while others, with which they disagreed, were viewed as blinders of the ignorant. According to those who view themselves as non-believers, there are certain basic strategies by which people can live together and these include the proscription of murder and theft. They reflect what we call “morality.”^x But, it may be argued, it was people who made the decision about what strategies to consider useful to society^xi and which ones to dismiss as inappropriate. And those people saw any rules with which they disagreed as religious and bigoted to those who scorned religion, while they were simply deemed wrong by those who followed a different religion.

However an individual, or a society, decides what is Right and what is Wrong, it cannot be denied that all such judgments come from the same source – whatever you believe that is – and human beings, at various times in the past, chose which would be considered moral and which were to be dismissed as fantasy. As they still do. Arguments that some are “religious precepts” simply reflect the rejection of such ideas and the wish to have them viewed in a negative light. Perhaps we're not prepared to accept everyone's views on all issues, but making their discussion taboo, and limiting people's right to think whatever they want and believe whatever they want only serves to divide us. If we only want to hear what we already believe and ban the expression of different ideas, it's not likely that we'll ever learn or grow.

Banning thoughts and ideas is a more restrictive concept than any you'll find in the Bible. The Constitution ha no place for it and neither should we.

Next episode: “The Devil Made Me Do It” – I'm entitled to be bad.

I        In fact its posting is itself beyond the pale in many communities

ii       Indeed, they are among the most important and famous religious principles that we know.

iii       Or anywhere else for that matter.

iv       Wed like to believe this is the goal of both, but we know that such is not always the case.

v        But it may be different tomorrow. Remember that “now” is always changing.

vi       Most laws apply equally to those who agree with them and those who do not, but are the product of the majority – a majority of Congress. There are times, however, when particular minorities are exempted from the laws – for example conscientious objectors didn't have to fight even when others were subject to the draft, and Congress often exempts its own members from laws it imposes on others. The Supreme Court, moreover, has no hesitation in deciding what the Constitution “means,” sometimes based on its view of the intent of the writers and sometimes in spite of that intent.

vii       To the Danbury Baptist Association.

viii     The original idea wasn't his either. According to Wikipedia, it “echo[ed] the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams – who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" – Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”]

ix        See, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Jefferson was the author.

x        Of course morality is a relative concept, and the standards may differ depending on the society in which you live.

xi       Moreover, since they disagree on morality, it is not surprising that different societies have different views on some of these issues.

Romeo And Juliet: Democrats

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

The quotation is usually attributed to Winston Churchill, although it's interesting that during his youth he was a conservative and joined the Labor Party later on. He did, however revert to his conservative philosophy after that. And there he remained. Whether or not he originated the idea, however, he expressed the same sentiment on several occasions.

It's not a new idea. Respect for age has long been a component of the philosophy of all peoples. The wise man of every culture is old.ⁱ His wisdom comes from long experience, and is, in large part, based a recognition of reality – the reality he has seen with the passing of the years.

But most people don't start out this way. They are passionate and optimistic. For a brief period there is perennial spring, and young love is all around. The young are always in love, or about to be. “In the spring a young man's fancy ...” Romeo and Juliet were in their teens,ⁱⁱ and they were very much in love.

The passion of the young, however is not only for opposite sex; it also manifests itself in their attachment to particular political ideas and causes. They display great concern for those less fortunate, and they see society as both the cause of that condition and the party responsible for its solution. So it's natural that they consider society responsible for righting the wrongs. But it's an attitude that started long before.

“Daddy. I want that.” “Mommy, I want all my friends at my birthday party.” “At school we're collecting for the hungry. Give me a few dollars to take in.”

Children, who don't understand what they are doing, are eager to have, and to give away, someone else's money.ⁱⁱⁱ And the inclination to do so persists as a habit even as they enter their earning years. When they're young, moreover, they see the good in everyone and view society as responsible for making certain that all those good people are taken care of. Even if the “rich” must do it. The later stories of Robin Hood illustrated this outlook. “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” It's socialism, which is seen by them as the most just form of economy – as long as they're on the receiving end, or at least not asked to pay. It's a continuation of the idea that there is virtue in giving away someone else's possessions.

What also develops during youth is the view that they will live forever and never age. There arises with that view some suspicion of those who are older, and of authority in general. Children are convinced that they know more than their parents, and they distrust those who are in charge.^iv In fact, they are wary of all those who are better off than they, and very openhearted when it comes to the needs and demands of those lower than themselves in society.^v There is no concern over the precise reason for their own position, or that of others: the better off you are, the less worthy. And vice-versa. They are liberal in their view of how the underprivileged^vi should be treated. And they are passionate in their beliefs. They are young^vii and sympathetic.^viii They view those in poverty as the virtuous^ix while those who are not impoverished are responsible for the poverty. They may not know who Winston Churchill was, but they exemplify the characteristics he described.

Conservatives view the world differently – especially their perception of their philosophic opposites. They forget that they were once young. From their perspective, liberals have no concept of reality. In their eagerness to right society's wrongs, the young are impulsive, reckless, and destructive. They give little thought to the likely results of their actions – only to the desired results. The possibility of unintended consequences, they believe, should not prevent action. Planning for the future should not delay acting in the present. And in the end if they work virtuously, good will triumph over evil.

Conservatives believe that the young accept, on faith, the idea that people are good and should be trusted. From their own point of view, however, it would be better not to trust any others and to plan for all possible contingencies. To a degree, they agree with their counterparts in respect to distrusting authority, but their reasoning is different. Liberals are likely to accept as it stands the teaching of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Thus it is wrong to follow those who are “corrupt” and who are “almost always bad men.” Implicit in that concept is the idea that until they became powerful and great, they were pure and good.

But that is where they part ways with conservatives who consider many people bad – not just those in power. For most of us, though, our sins are practiced on a small scale because that is all that is available to us. When the corrupt become powerful, however, they become a threat to everyone else. A Hitler or a Stalin who is not in power may be malicious, but his influence is limited. It is the individual, not the office, that is the source of evil and corruption. And it is the office that magnifies malevolence.

It's oversimplification of course, but, for the most part, there are good people and there are bad people. And there are the rest of us.^x Unfortunately, those concerned about the plight of the downtrodden will try to aid them irrespective of the consequences, and others will prefer to consider those consequences before trying to help. What is often needed is a sensitivity by both groups to the views of the other. We cannot be blind to the needs of our brothers and sisters, but we cannot ignore the costs of our actions nor their possible results. And we cannot ignore the costs that we are imposing on future generations. They will be called upon to help the poor who exist among them, and may be unable to do so if we impose the cost of helping our needy on our descendents.

The ideas of discussion and compromise are neither original nor new. But we cannot make a headlong attack on the needs of the world's people without first discussing the best way to accomplish our goals without creating more problems than we solve. We cannot consider plans that will enrich the hearts of the planners and the pockets of those who implement the plans more than the intended beneficiaries. However we can't delay acting until we've devised a plan that will deal with all conceivable contigencies. We cannot place ideology above reality. It may be necessary to take some risks, as long as we know what they are.

No matter our age, we have to follow both our hearts and our brains.

Next episode: “The Bible And American Law” – You can't have one without the other.

 

 

 

I        Some of the young are, indeed, smart. They may even be smarter than their seniors as are some scientists, composers, chess players, and mathematicians. But they are rarely as wise.

ii       Using Churchill's criteria, that would make them liberal. In the context of American politics they would have been Democrats if they lived here now. (Of course if they had survived from Shakespeare's time to ours they would be quite old, and probably conservative by this time. At least if they had brains in addition to their hearts.)

iii       It's an inclination that persists during their school years but diminishes, and usually disappears, when they realize that it's their own money; that it causes their taxes to be higher.

iv       A special distrust of government and government officials exists, often with good reason. Surveys tell us that members of Congress, and politicians in general, rank very low among the various groups in our society when it comes to matters of confidence.

v        Ours, or elsewhere in the world.

vi      The word “underprivileged” suggests that they were not born into the wealthy class and that they have no responsibility for their condition. While that is often the case, it is not universal and the choice of that word prejudices the hearer and tells him that those so described have been placed in their unenviable situation by the “privileged” – those who undeservedly oppress the rest of us. Someone who started out underprivileged and, by dint of his own efforts, is now well-off, was good and has become evil.

vii      Not all liberals, of course, are young but, like Peter Pan, they may choose not to grow up. The philosophy may persist in some as a sincere reflection of their belief in equality. For others it may be a characteristic admired by their profession (it's important for one who wants to progress in academia for example to be a member of the right – politically left – clique, just as it is for little girls, though the cliques of little girls may have different criteria for membership, and they may not be as mean) or a self-serving property. Union members will certainly demand higher pay owed to them by the rich, and the poor, whether young or old, are certain that they are owed the support of society as a whole.

viii     In the terminology of coldhearted conservatives they are bleeding heart liberals.

ix       Of course they don't see virtue in poverty.

x        I'll discuss that issue at another time. Stay tuned.

Obama, Roosevelt, And Rocky

Being a parent is hard work. It takes practice. And practice comes from on-the-job training. So you never really learn how to do it until you're done.

But it's worth it. And the lessons extend far beyond the home. In fact they can be applied to national and international policy. Indeed, in the other direction, the lessons of national and international policy can provide guidelines for child-rearing.

Let's back up a little. My dog is a gem.ⁱ At least figuratively. His name is Diamond – that's what my kids named him – but I call him Rocky. He's well trained and will never relieve himself on my property or anywhere near it unless given permission. And he'll never leave my property unless such movement is sanctioned. He's gentle with children, and very protective of them. And of all of my family. He loves us and we love him.

Achieving this result may not have been easy, but it wasn't as hard as it might have been. It resulted from a combination of love, respect, rewards, and punishment. Were I considering a horse of a mule, I might call it a “carrot and stick” approach, however in this case the tools, apart from love, were doggy treats and an “invisible” fence. I've never yelled at him, but I made my desires clear.

I treated my kids the same way.ⁱⁱ I tried not to yell, though they knew when I was disappointed with them, and they responded to my concerns. Punishment, while dished out with love, was clear and predictable, though not violent – at least not from me directly. When one of the kids was struck by another, I didn't hesitate to have the victim deliver “payback” in my presence, and to have the wrongdoer “take it” without response.

And the rules were organized and explicit. Expectations of each of the children were posted, and the list of individual responsibilities served as a guide to their performance. They understood both the rules and their roles, and they knew that failure would have consequences. They respected me and I respected them – but rules are rules. Notwithstanding free will, they knew what would result.ⁱⁱⁱ

I'm a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy. My approach is similar to what Teddy Roosevelt wrote in a letter to Henry Sprague:^iv “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was not yet President when he wrote it, but it was a view he took with him to higher office. We are a country that sees itself as a major power. Indeed, we'd like to believe that we're the predominant power on earth. One of the major debates we have had as a nation through the centuries involves the degree of involvement with other nations. Should we act as “the world's policeman,” or should we mind our own business? Time and events have shown us^v that we have a responsibility for our fellow men^vi around the world. That's where the “big stick” comes in. Carrots are nice, however they don't always work the way we'd like.

For, sadly, respect for our position is difficult to maintain in a changing world, and it's even harder to credit our worthiness of it when we're as deeply in debt as we are – especially to our chief rival for dominance, China. Having said that, however, there is no doubt that our importance to other nations remains a critical factor in the thinking and planning of nations around the world. Unfortunately it is because we have, and we offer, a lot of carrots. So other nations dangle hopes before us in exchange for what they hope to get from us.

And we wind up where we are now. We speak loudly but wield only a small stick. Our current foreign policy is one of threats of action if our ideas are ignored, but the dangled hopes keep us from acting – except to offer more carrots in the hope of getting others to follow our leads. We want to believe that we are respected, and those with whom we deal will agree with our analysis. We make contingency plans but never implement them, preferring to accept the word of those whom we are threatening that eventually they'll do what we ask. No threat we make is credible. The worst the current Administration is likely to do is “view with disappointment,” and suggest sanctions. There are no real consequences of continuing policies we consider wrong.

Those who oppose our “sticking our nose” into the affairs of others, along with the tyrants we threaten, are comforted by that knowledge. But those who are not isolationists – who view our behavior as an abdication of responsibility – mourn our loss of resolve, and regret that heinous actions will do no more than get us to wring our hands.

I hope my kids know better. My imaginary dog certainly does.

Next episode: “Romeo and Juliet: Democrats” – But you would have predicted that.

I        Actually we had a cat. She was good but a little independent, and the story of the dog, though imagined, is much more to the point. (If I had had a dog, that would have been the way I treated him or her.) The rest of the essay is true.

ii       Now we're back to fact. (I loved my cat but let's face it. Cats train you. You don't train them.)

iii     My children – now grown and with kids of their own – still tell me that I'm predictable. I view it as a compliment.

iv      January 26th 1900, though he repeated the sentiment later.

v       They've certainly shown me. And, I suspect, many others as well.

vi      That's figurative as well. Read “men, women, and children.”