These Are The Days My Friend

They'll end. So let's enjoy them now.

After all, the time will come when they're seen as the “good old days.” It always happens, but in retrospect we don't always agree. Such simple things as electricity and indoor plumbing haven't always existed. And certainly not jet flight, computers, and instant communications.

But we look back on the past with nostalgia and remember the “good times” that are no more. I suspect, however, that we wouldn't want to live as our grandparents did. We latch on to each new gimmick and fad and wonder how our ancestors lived without them – as they wondered about the survival of those who preceded them. Perhaps there are some improvements that could be made, but things have never been so good. And the same was true in each generation before ours. At least that's the perception.

Well, I'm not sure. Sometimes I think we're going too fast. And sometimes I think we're going in the wrong direction. And sometimes both. For example, we're at a point when we can send a space craft to meet up with an asteroid and land on it. After that it's expected that the craft will sample some of he asteroid's contents and return them to earth. Amazing! At the same time, however, the conditions for many of those now living on earth are terrible. For some there's not enough to eat while others lack a safe place to sleep at night, or even to walk during the day. We're devoting too much in tax dollars to answer the theoretical questions that scientists have, even though we know that those answers, which may be of interest to future generations, will have no effect on our lives. In our liberal and idealistic frame of mind, we are more interested in our perceived obligation to our great, great, grandchildren (should the world survive) than to our own children. We may mouth our interest in them, but our real fascination is for the unknown – for the next big thing.

We've developed social media, and the devices that bring it to us, while becoming more and more antisocial, preferring to text rather than talk. And we can now get almost any sort of food at any time of year, including everything we need to plate a gourmet meal for our families. In fact why bother preparing food for them? We can get a ready-made nutritious gourmet meal that we just have to pop into the oven or microwave, and free ourselves from the tedious burden of actually cooking for those we say we love.

I don't mean to suggest that before the rocket ship people had enough to eat and a safe place to live. But even if they weren't able to accomplish it, they gave thought to using our resources for the sake of improving the lives of their brothers and sisters. Of course we're doing that now, but our goals are far more speculative than they used to be. Our focus has changed from what's now, to what's to come.

I certainly don't believe that the electronic age is all bad. I'm a hermit and I enjoy the opportunity to do all my shopping without leaving the house. But I'm an anomaly. If society is to survive and flourish, people must interact with each other. Face to face. Not on a machine. The world's problems won't be solved by people gazing into their palms.

And there's a lot to be said for cooking dinner. It's an expression of love and concern for each other, not just of necessity. There is communion of more than our bodies when bread is broken and wine drunk. (Mary Francis Kennedy Fisher) That, of course, will require that people have the raw materials necessary for such an endeavor. But we could take more steps toward that goal now if we chose to do so.

Some day, perhaps, people will look back at today, and suggest that it was the ideal time. They'll be wrong. It is, sadly, and age when we've given up on the present and are more interested in moving to the future – whatever the cost. We don't need to provide for those around us. We're too busy avoiding them, and each other, as we look for an easier time for ourselves now, and a quicker path to tomorrow. This may also have been the attitude in the past, but people didn't have the tools that would permit them to act on their wishes. Now we do. (Though in times to come our descendants will take note of our primitive devices. They'll also wonder about our aversion to GMF, which is simply accelerated evolution, a concept in which we claim to believe.)

And we're devoting our resources to tomorrow as well, without always considering how they might be used to improve conditions for those here now, and for those soon to come. Tax dollars, which might aid those suffering at present, are being used to answer the speculations of scientists who look to others to support their muses and clarify their mental conjectures. Perhaps their ideas will aid future generations, but it those future generations who will have to pay for them. We have to go into debt to do so now, leaving some current problems unsolved as we make the great leap forward.

There's an old saying, Don't just do something. Stand there. It contains a lesson that we haven't learned yet, but we're far beyond it. There's no going back, as much as it might be desirable. Our only hope is that we can stop and think about the implications of what we are doing now.




September 7, 2016

Eligite Diem

It's usually carpe diem, but scholarly as that may sound, I prefer eligite diem. I hope I have that right. It's been over sixty years since I took Latin and my memory's fading, however I think I'm right, and even if I'm not you probably won't know the difference. Ego caterva, “I hope.” (And I hope I have that right as well.)

Let's start with definitions. We'll get them out of the way before proceeding. Carpe diem, the common expression, means “seize the day,” while eligite diem, if my Latin is correct, means “choose the day.” They represent two different philosophies but are by no means mutually exclusive.

The first, carpe diem, seize and enjoy the day, tells us not only to “play the hand we're dealt,” but to improve on it – to take advantage of every opportunity. To make the most of opportunities, by whatever means is necessary. And it's good advice. Not being cowed by the world we face but making the best of every situation is not only realistic but good practice. As the saying goes, “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” But it may not always be possible – unless you thought in advance to get sugar. So it's not the best philosophy to live by.

Eligite is about choosing, and that's good policy: preparation for what's in store. It may be tedious and tiresome, but understanding the challenges ahead, anticipating the opportunities and when they'll come along, gives you the opportunity to choose the time to do whatever you have in mind. The decision is yours. You act when you're ready rather than react to a sudden occurrence when you may not be prepared.

The thought came to mind soon after reading Consumer Reports, a magazine that evaluates and rates a wide variety of products, telling of their advantages and disadvantages. Those, however, are advantages and disadvantages in the mind of the reviewer. The magazine's articles are designed to enumerate the evaluation criteria, and to tell how each product measures up in regard to them. Clearly some consumers will be more interested in one feature than another and their choices may vary from those of the reviewer. Recognizing the different approaches of the magazine, and how it describes all the features in each of the products it tests, the reader can make the decision.

As a mental exercise, I began wondering about the different days of the year where I live. How would I rate them? What yardsticks would I use? I knew that my choice was likely to differ from others who live in the area. The criteria that came to mind immediately, the ones that varied through the year, were primarily weather and hours of light and dark. There were also the days when taxes were collected and the days that were observed as holidays – not that I work and would benefit from a holiday. Every day is a day off. Religious holidays were also factored in as I searched for the best day of the year. I knew then, and I know now, that my decision would be different from that of others, but I knew also that it didn't mean anything anyway. It was, with only one exception, a silly exercise.

But the one exception was, by extension, an important one. It became clear to me when thinking about desirable days and the criteria that were meaningful for me, that the best way to seize the right day was to prepare for it – to decide in advance about what is likely to happen, and when. For example – and most parents are aware of it – it's better to know when their childrens' homework is due and to “encourage” them to deal with it early, rather than to help them out when the deadline is nigh. “The day” may never come and we may never have the opportunity to accomplish what we want if we wait to seize it. And, assuming money is available, it's better to pay bills immediately, than to avoid them until the last moment when you may have spent the money on something else. Overdraft protection is nice, but if you've avoided the need for it you're ahead of the game.

Most financial planners will advise you save or invest on a regular schedule rather than waiting for an “opportunity” – to choose what is best rather than hope for it to arrive. If it does come and you can seize it, all the better. But if that's not the case you're still in good shape. To get into that position you'll have to have studied all the factors involved, and chosen the best schedule for yourself based on income, anticipated expenditures, and historic patterns of variation of the economy.

And it's best to put off purchases until the days when you know they'll be most fruitful – when you'll do the best. Perhaps that will be on “black Friday” or possibly on the day that your local supermarket doubles the value of coupons. (Or about two weeks before Valentine Day. Prices on flowers go up markedly the week before. Don't wait until you have to seize the day, unless you know with certainty that an opportunity is coming.)

There's nothing very esoteric about what I'm saying. It's all common sense and you know it all. But for most people it's not a major consideration. Yet all it requires is a little thought about what's coming – a little planning rather than a reaction to to what happens outside your control: study and preparation rather than luck. It doesn't always work but it makes more sense than waiting and hoping, and acting, because you have no choice, at what might be an inopportune moment. Deciding, all of a sudden, that you want to get married on a beautiful spring day may be romantic, but not if you had hoped to do so at a particular site, which is not available on the spot. And not if you want others to attend. And not if you want to feed them. Planning and preparation aren't exciting. Impulsive action is far more glamorous. But the former approach is more likely to prove successful, and anyway, it doesn't exclude the possibility of seizing chances. It only limits them to times when they are, indeed, possible without prejudicing other actions. And when you're prepared to take advantage of them.

I don't lead a very exciting life. In fact in many ways it's boring. But it's predictable, and that's a big help. Something may happen of course, even though most things will be arranged, but I can deal with most changes, and I much prefer boredom to excitement if excitement brings risk. I prefer to choose when it suits me, rather than be surprised and faced with the need to make rapid and unconsidered decisions.

So education, planning and preparation allow me to choose the best time to act, rather than to react hurriedly to an unexpected situation, even a favorable one. And I may choose to do so in a way different from my neighbor, who may himself be acting differently from others. But I'll be ready to make a considered choice – even in the case of a surprise. If I've prepared well enough to choose I'll be ready to seize the day if it should come. If we seize anything, though, it should be the chance to choose.






February 6, 2017

Mixed Grill N + 5

More of the worst of Sir Oracle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Till dearth do us part – Consult the pre-nup.

Salamaghandi – Mumbai sausage.

Supeheron – Look ma. No legs.

Water works – No need to see the urologist.


Don't look a gift hearse in the mouth – Just get out of the way.


A far cry – Three in the morning and it's your turn.

Ann of Green Bagels – She originated the St. Pat's Day treat. Goes great with green beer.

Constitution of The United States – Overweight

It's time for a change – 26^th Amendment.

Jordan Hall – Boston concert venue known for fast music.

Toys B' Us – Ethnic franchise.  (No fiscal problems.)

(MOU)PO(OS)SSLQ – Twenty-first century version of late 1970's census category. MOU= married or unmarried, OS = or same.

           (IMOU)PO(OS)SSLQ – They're fighting all the time.

To be or not to be – Only seven years old and the pressure is so high.

Don't ask – And I won't tell. Not that you'd care anyway.

Till death do us part – After that go to St. Pete's Hair Salon.

Beau's arts – Need something for your girlfriend?

Reuben sandwich – A lot of slices out of a single Reuben.

October – Piece by Eric Whitacre

Ambergrits – Huge serving of corn. Far exceeds even southern hospitality.

Little red riding hood – Saved by Peter and the Wolf's hunters.

Mendical marijuana – OK. But only the first is free.

Mockery – Turtle soup competition.

Not on my watch! – Thirteen o'clock.

Let's not knot and say we did – Eagle Scout wannabe.

Free association – Not in the U.S.

My kingdom for a hearse – Said by he head of Richard III's cleanup crew.

Cold comfort – Oslo

Knee slapper – Sexual abuse.

Doppelgȁnger – In effect, can't stay on key whether coming or going.

Flasher – Member of flash mob.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wurst?

Mixed Grill N+3

You may not think these funny because they aren't funny,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Salamagundi – Mumbai sausage.

Supeheron – Look ma. No legs.

Water works – No need to see the urologist.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth – It's considered polite to read the card first.

A far cry – Three in the morning and it's your turn.

Ann of Green Bagels – She originated the St. Patrick's Day treat. Ideal with green beer.

Constitution of The United States – Overweight.

It's time for a change – 26^th Amendment.

Earache – ENT tool for cleaning out wax.

Three Bearers – A fourth needed for balance.

Down and out – Expensive duvet got torn.

San Fernando Valley – Rudy's kid

Child care – Concierge baby sitting

Hashtag – Bill in the diner.

Illegal Alien – Martian with green skin but no green card.

Inn the beginning – First B & B.

Cold war – Competition after invention of refrigeration.

Belle Curve – Use you're imagination.

Creationism – Christian Science

The route of all evil – The Pacific Coast Highway.

Robert's Rules of Order – Take it or leave it.

One Be or Not One Be – Failed first draft.

Play it again, Sam – Red.

Book it, Danno – A room in Hawaii's best hotel.

Mine's bigger than yours – More ore, too.

Half a loaf is better than none – But two heads are better than one.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum – But you won't find it here.

It wasn't all that funny anyway.

Believe it or not –Frankly I don't believe it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Or you may think they're funny. Your choice.

January 19, 2018

Mixed Grill XVII

I am very intolerant of other people's puns. They're usually bad or silly and not worth repeating. Mine, however, are usually bad and silly and not worth repeating, but I shall anyway. And you'll be blessed with their (high or low) quality. Or you can simply delete this message.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Stanley Steamer – Starbucks new coffee foamer

Vatican – Pope Francis outdoes President Obama

Maxwell Silverhammer – Jack Benny's secret sports car

It's a bird, it's a plain, it's Eremophila alpestris

What goes up must come down – Except prices

Benadryl and Jerry's – Hypoallergenic ice cream

Hog butcher for the world – And butcher of Cleveland as well

Make the world safe for democracy – Shoot all the Republicans

Computer (r)age – Don't reboot, boot.

Klaatu barada nikto – A word to the Gort is sufficient

Tapeworm – Adult inchworm

She sells sea shells by the seashore – And Jim Moran sold a refrigerator to an Eskimo

Stingray – Singing policeman and blind singer/pianist

Poker faith – I can fill an inside straight without smiling

Leave well enough alone – Leave bad enough alone; in short – butt out

Blarney Stone – Everyone expects spin from Oliver

Timing of the shroud – Carbon-dating fabric

Civilians – Spanish soccer team

I feel your pain – Now vote for me

Love means never having to say anything

Carry me back to old Virginny – Borne in the USA

You could be swinging on a star – Lynching reaches new heights

Weal of fortune – It takes money to make money

Scientific principles – What does physics have to do with ethics?

Bluebird of hairiness – Transitional evolutionary form

Some people see things that are and ask, Why?

Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not?

Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that. (George Carlin)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Go to work and do something useful.

Redoing The UN

[This will be a little longer than usual. I hope it's worth your time.]

Reality time. I got all huffy and indignant last week at the failures of the United Nations, and I indicated additional costs to New York from maintaining their headquarters here. I indicated the advantages both to the United States and to New York City of terminating an association with the organization. But I did not actually propose that we do so.

Would we be justified? What I said about the organization's failure still stands. The high hopes I, and others had for the United Nations have, unfortunately, not proved to reflect its actual accomplishments, but the path of withdrawal, however warranted it might be, would likely take us where we don't want to go. A stick without a carrot may be effective in the short run, but it is not liable to provide the long term results we desire.

Murphy, whoever he may have been, predicted that whatever we tried to do would fail. He did not say so, though others have, that every action has unanticipated consequences. Unanticipated and undesired. Withdrawal from the UN certainly would. “What if” analyses would uncover a lot of them but not all. If we wait until all results are predictable, however, no action would ever be taken, so we have to work with best guesses.

Some things are clear. Those nations – and there are many of them – that distrust the US or dislike us for any reason will certainly detest us even more. And it's also certain that people will remain people and they will continue to place personal and national interests above those that are international. It's easy to speak piety, but practicing it isn't likely unless there is something to be gained thereby. The rich will remain rich, and the poor, poor. The strong will continue to be powerful and want to dominate the weak. Because people – and now I'm talking about national leaders, but we're all the same – won't change. There has to be something that convinces the population that they will benefit from what is offered, or a tyrant will have free rein.

Carrots are indicated. An unsupervised infusion of money won't do the trick, since those leaders will often find a way to siphon off most of it for themselves, but development and training programs for the uneducated and for those without a way of earning a living may be helpful. One possibility is for the United States to send to the poor nations, perhaps the poorest first, a group capable of evaluating what resources or services can be developed in each nation – preferably to fill a need that is not being filled already and is thus “needed” by the rest of the world – and then a team to supply needed materials and help them implement the recommendations of the group. Other countries must be discouraged afterwards from trying to compete. The goal would be to have each nation able to provide some things the world needs and thus make cooperation between countries to everyone's benefit. Mutual dependence may help nations; development will help individuals and make them less susceptible to the promises of tyrants. New nations that apply for UN membership should be required to submit development plans that will benefit their own citizens.

We might also send materials and workers to assist in the building of homes and other necessary buildings in countries that are too poor to be able to do so on their own. The Peace Corps and Habitat For Humanity are among the models which might be considered. The personnel performing this function would also be useful in teaching farming and other techniques that would aid individuals and families in areas that are not national priorities.

Another inducement – and one that would lessen the strain on New York City – would be to move the UN to somewhere accessible nearby where land is less expensive. The sale of property in mid-Manhattan, both land and buildings, would bring in a large bankroll which might at least pay for the beginnings of the establishment of a UN campus, more modern and congenial than the one imagined in the 1940s, close to the city but outside it, with buildings (including a museum in which nations would be able to display whatever about their countries that they deem significant), residences for representatives of all nations, and the conveniences of a small town (restaurants, grocery stores, clothing stores, etc.) and would lessen the congestion in the city while turning Turtle Bay into taxable property. And it would lessen the city's security costs and the abuse of our laws by those with diplomatic immunity. Payment by the various countries involved, of less than they were paying for rent and other expenses in the city would also contribute to making the campus viable. (And they'd have to work with each other in governing themselves.) Such a facility would also provide privacy for the workings of the organization. True, the diplomats would be separated from fancy restaurants, theaters, and expensive shops, but the purpose of the UN is not to amuse diplomats, but to get the world's work done. And it's also a sad fact that school class trips to the UN would be all but eliminated, however it would be for a good cause.

As for the UN's functions, security should be provided for all nations, possibly based on agreement that all borderlines are sacrosanct and a standing UN army will be activated automatically, and with only limited discussion, whenever one country's troops, “irregulars,” or ordinance, cross a border without permission. It would constitute a universal military alliance, making local pacts irrelevant. We always search for ways to avoid confrontation. It's certainly virtuous to do so, but there are some “red lines” we must draw and enforce if we hope to get nations to respect each other's borders. Sanctions may be good warnings, but assured action is more likely to achieve the purpose.

A single international economic body makes sense and would eliminate the need for multiple, often competing agreements. All nations should contribute to it, with contributions based on territory, population and some fiscal measure like gross national product. All monetary grants (except as noted) should be in the form of programs that are paid from its funds. Forensic accountants should be employed to make sure that the money used doesn't go into the pockets of officials and other skimmers. Money may be disbursed when a country's economy demands, but the forensic accountants should monitor this as well. (And, perhaps, the accountants should also be monitored.)

Steps should be taken as well to help the organization act more honorably. One of its goals is the promotion of human rights. So says its charter, but the UN doesn't always live up to its ideals. The UN Human Rights Commission regularly contains nations that have poor records – they are among the worst offenders of the UN principles – but their democratic election is appropriate. However member nations should be required to appraise each other's record annually by completing a rating form of all members annually. Their appraisal can be evaluated by everyone to see if it is unbiased and if the choices of members in the commission corresponds to it; and if the agenda and the views of the group seem to make sense. Of course some nations may decline to perform evaluations, but this, too, should be public knowledge.

Similarly every nation should evaluate the performance of the other nations in regard to their compliance with other rulings by the UN. Here, too, the evaluations would have no purpose other than to educate the world's population about what members believe – or at least say – about each other. And it may put some countries in the position of having to justify and live up to their claims.

A single judiciary should be established making it both unnecessary and impossible for individual nations to prosecute “war criminals” from other countries. Many prosecutions are justified, but others are primarily for political purposes.

Perhaps the published evaluations (the UN already publishes a great deal) would put nations in the position of rethinking their stands on various issues and various procedures. It would certainly help the public understood the stands of the member nations which would be the case if their biases (points of view, if you prefer) are already known. As such it will lessen the need for prolonged and repetitive arguments in the General Assembly. Discussion of real issues is warranted, but prolonged vituperation can be avoided.

And that brings us to the worst problem – the one that led me to consider the UN in the first place. It is the veto which is used to provide a stumbling block to action. Whatever its original justification, its primary implementation is for the purpose of preventing the UN from taking action. What might be useful is to turn the founding nations into a crisis committee of five and require only a majority vote for it to bring any item to the full Security Council at which two vetoes would be necessary to block any action. Speeches made in the Council could also be evaluated by the world's population in the light of previously stated positions. It would still be possible to block action but it would be harder and political causes would be more obvious.

Would such changes help? Would they have the effect of making the UN into a true advocate of world peace? Are they practical? Are they practicable? Of course not. There are many consequences I haven't foreseen or considered.  But discussion of them may cause members to rethink both the procedures of the organization and the decisions it reaches. And it may be enough to hold us over until meaningful changes can be made. And it may provide time for us to revise our parking laws.






February 12, 2017