I'm Embarrassed

We live in an age of protest. An age of outrage. Of righteous indignation.

That's not news. I've said it before, and even then it was common knowledge. But the media have no compunctions about repeating themselves when they think it's to their political advantage, or when it pleases readers, so I'll do the same.

What prompted this rant? An article from the New York Times entitled “Does Trump Embarrass You?” which is a couple of months old but just sent me by a friend. The author, Neil Gross, concludes that most Americans would answer that question affirmatively. I know I would. The President appears to be impulsive, not fully aware of the details of international politics and of his office, and self-absorbed. But he is our president.

And I am equally, or perhaps more, embarrassed by those who glory in any fault they can find in America and use it for political advantage while ignoring similar activities that don't support their cause; people who are eager to advertise whatever will embarrass America. They claim to love their country, but they display outrage when it suits their purposes. They're the professional provocateurs and their useful idiots. They tend to be a small, but very vocal, group. And though a tiny minority of all citizens, they usually greatly outnumber those they are trying to intimidate and silence. They get more press that way.

I said “silence” and that's what I meant. Those of whom I speak claim they're only exercising their right of free speech but meanwhile they silence others trying to do the same. They do it in the hallowed halls of ivy and on the streets. They're protecting all of us from the vile speech of those they oppose, while crying wolf about their own rights. That's the current fashion – mark the opposition as a band of evil tyrants while you are the protectors of American values. But they do it primarily for political and public relations purposes. It's simply an extension of negative campaigning when you have no accomplishments of your own. And those protesting rely on the belief of the public that it's heartfelt and patriotic, rather than political, vindictive, and hypocritical. (They take pride in their “humility” and want everybody to know it.)

I meant that too. It's hypocrisy. Those who protest in the name of American values and patriotism didn't see a need to protest when fellow citizens burned American flags and their draft cards before fleeing to Canada. They applauded their pardons when they returned later at a time there was no risk for their fellows, although others had died to defend their rights. I am embarrassed by those who silence others as they demand free speech for themselves. They talk of nazi-ism now while they didn't protest Skokie but applauded the Supreme Court's decision that the march of Nazis through a neighborhood of survivors was only an expression of First Amendment rights. And I'm saddened by those who decry the violence of their opponents while never acknowledging that of their supporters.

I'm appalled by their indignation over the death of one black by police, while uninterested in the assassinations of numerous police officers, black and white and I'm troubled that they are outraged by the death of one protester in Charlottesville while there were no marches to protest the murders of hundreds in Chicago and elsewhere. And while protesters bemoaned the death of one of them by automobile, I am not aware of their protests of similar incidents in France, England, Spain, and Israel, although many more were killed. Are they only concerned about problems in their own country? Do their compassion and sensitivity not extend beyond our borders?

The most recent issue concerns the complaints that President Trump visited Texas too soon after Hurricane Harvey. “It was all political.” President Bush had been faulted for visiting Louisiana too late, although there were only a few days' difference between the timing of the two trips. It suggests that the protesters are simply looking for issues, and that their outrage is selective.

Also recent – though starting before Harvey – is the expression of sensitivity over Confederate War monuments. The Civil War ended over one hundred and fifty years ago and there have been many gains since, even while the monuments stood. But suddenly we discover that any reference to the confederacy, especially statues, must be expunged because it inhibits progress. Recently (and continuing now) there has been a rash of removals of names from institutions and buildings for reasons of sensitivity to the perceived evils of those who had donated the funds necessary for the institutions' existence, and, hence, the renamings, as well as the destruction of our heritage, good or bad. It is more suggestive of “1984” or Soviet practices than a tribute to American history. And now Columbus is on their chopping block.

America has faults. It isn't perfect. But, in my opinion, it's closer to the ideal than almost any nation, now or in the past. The illegal immigrants about whom the protesters are so concerned chose to come here rather than stay in their own countries because of the United States' positive features. They demonstrated that those who are truly unhappy about where they live, and can afford to move, do so. And if they decide to stay it is to improve their country, not to prove that it is imperfect.

Yes, I am embarrassed by President Trump for whom I did not vote. But I'm more embarrassed by those who demean their country in the hope of national and international political gain. It all boils down to the acts of blindered ideologues and fanatics.

September 1, 2017

The Melting Pot

“A lot of folks didn't know they were black. A lot of people thought they were Americans.” So said (Black Panther) Jimmy Garrett about those attending his (identity raising) reading groups in the 1960's. (Cited in Andrew Hartman's A War for the Soul of America.)

They “thought they were Americans.” What a humiliating idea.

"America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians – into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American." That was the take of Israel Zangwill (in The Melting Pot) who, though English, better understood America's mission than many Americans.

Some have viewed this mission as a call for assimilation, which, to a degree, it is. America has always been a potpourri, an olio both ethnically and politically. We are a country of immigrants (remaining so today, notwithstanding the current political brouhaha) and while most of our newest members have adopted the culture of their new land, we have all gained by their incorporation into our culture of fragments of their own.

But the most important element has been the acquisition of our ways by those who have come here. It is what many have sought and what others have accepted in the quest to leave the oppressive situations in which they lived. Some came for the freedom we offer, and some primarily for economic reasons. Either way, however, they chose to join a society which they viewed as superior to their own. And there is no question that many of our country's benefits are unique, and worth the difficulties associated with migration.

There is no question, though, that Americans have been prejudiced against those they considered different from themselves. This includes those of other races, ethnicities, and religions. All are seen as “foreigners” or other “undesirables.” Some of our citizens denigrate as well those with accents, different sexual practices, opposing political views, and other levels of education from their own. Over the years, however, the differences have often faded (not invariably, of course) with assimilation and acculturation.

But we must all remember that assimilation doesn't preclude the maintaining of the cultures of their upbringings, nor the teaching of those cultures to their children or to us. That is a desirable practice helping us better understand both the values and practices of other nations and peoples – important on its own and a special need of those traveling for pleasure or business – and the comparative strengths of our own society. The importation of traditions other than our own is beneficial to us.

Still, “multiculturalism” can go too far. Some see their new home as a place which they would like to turn into one resembling the old. Europe has experienced immigration over recent decades (not just the recent flood from the Middle East) which has led to voluntary ghettoization and an attempt to import and impose the societies that they left, including religious law, on those to which they fled. And this has led to conflict and distrust all around them. It has led to demands that the newer members of that society “go back where they came from.”

A major problem is that while most want to assimilate and become full members of their new society – to become indistinguishable from other citizens – there are many who prefer the past to the present, and are unwilling to give up their old ways. Moreover, there are many who believe, often with good reason, that they are being marginalized by their new fellow citizens. But there are others who see their presumed marginalization as a meal ticket. It is a rationalization for any failures of their own, and a stick to be used against a society that they claim has oppressed them. Their ways are right, and society's are wrong.

From my perspective, such an attitude is unwarranted. It is admirable to want to preserve the past practices of your heritage, but that should be along with, not instead of, those of your new home. Perhaps your traditions should inform the new society in which you live, but they should not replace them. Except to the degree that they are protected by the first, or some other, amendment, they should be subservient to American law.

We do not live in an either/or society – one that requires that we eschew either our past or our present – but one that is both/and: one in which past, present, and future enhance each other. That is a status that will provide for our future and make it profitable for us all. We can be whatever, and Americans as well.

A Few Political Thoughts

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court and had served since 1986. He prided himself as being an “originalist,” one who considered the original intent and meaning of the Constitution as the principles by which cases should be understood and decided. It's a conservative view – one that frowns on the use of modern social concepts in the interpretation of the law. He was one of the conservative voices on a Court that alternated between liberal and conservative opinions with alarming irregularity. Its positions were not completely satisfactory to either constituency. Which was the cause of much anxiety among citizens whenever a case was to be decided about which they had strong opinions.

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. The President will now have the opportunity to nominate another candidate for the Court. He has already appointed two members – both staunch liberals reflecting his own political philosophy. Because they replaced one moderate liberal and one moderate conservative (though both had been appointed by Republicans) his appointments changed the nature of the Court. In all likelihood he will nominate another liberal to replace the conservative Scalia in an attempt to establish a firm liberal majority before his term in office ends. Because the Justices serve for life, such an appointment appointment would affect our society for many years.

President Obama will assert his right and responsibility to do so. It is his Constitutional duty. And he will contend that he is the only official elected by all the people and, thus, representative of their wishes. And he will remind us that it the duty of the Senate to pass judgment on his appointee. “Advice and consent” of the Senate are Constitutional requirements, and the Senators must not shirk their responsibilities. And if they do pass on his candidate, refusing to accept him or her, he will make a political year issue of their “obstructionism.”

President Obama will not mention that while he received 51.2% of the popular vote in 2012, he only had the approval of 43% of the population in 2014 (Pew). Any claim to his popularity and representativeness should be taken with those numbers in mind. And it is hard to ignore the fact that voters have since chosen Republican (conservative) majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The latter is more of a problem for the President who will challenge them to perform their mandated responsibilities as he performs his. He will not mention his end run around the Senate when he declared the treaty with Iran to be an “agreement” which does not require the Senate's consent. Indeed, he cajoled the Democratic minority in the Senate to prevent a vote there so he wouldn't have to veto Congress's will (and the will of the American people) which would lower his popularity still further. Put differently, he prevented the Senate from performing its Constitutional responsibility when it helped him to do so, but he will insist they perform it when he believes that this will be to his advantage.

It is my hope that they will remain firm and wait to see the will of the people in 2016 before making any decision on candidates put forth by the President.

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

For better or worse, the United States, which was, at one time, the leader of the “free” world, has abandoned that designation. We once thought of ourselves as the world's “policemen” with the responsibility for protecting the weak from the tyranny of their leaders (primarily, of course, ones who disagreed with our policies). Our stance now is to defer to the United Nations and the European Union, and to the leaders of countries we once viewed as enemies. We talk and discuss problems. Perhaps that is better than taking a stand or taking action. As Churchill said, “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war.” But the recognition by other nations that we will only “jaw-jaw” gives them reason not to take our threats, red-lines, and deadlines seriously. In many senses we have returned to the isolationism of our past. Perhaps that is wise, but it implies the acceptance of injustices which we will permit to exist irrespective of our proclamation of American ideals.

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

At the moment, the leaders in the race for the Presidential nominations are Donald Trump and Senator Bernard Sanders. Because they are both disliked by so many voters, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may enter the race. It would be an interesting lineup. In a country that spawned the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and numerous other similar crusades against the oppression by the rich of all of the rest of us, in addition to an avowed socialist our choice would be between two billionaires. And in a country with (according to the ADL) more than 10% antisemites among the adult population – a country that has always had a Christian President (we can debate about President Obama at another time) – two of the three candidates would be Jewish.

What a country.

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

It's “silly season.” It's campaign time. That really started a long time ago and it's clear that some candidates for high office start planning their strategies many cycles in advance of their actual goals. Some countries limit the hullabaloo to a few weeks, but politics is an American obsession. We may not agree on anything else, but we love the time when we can argue. We all agree on that.

I'll probably discuss these issues again at another time, but I couldn't help commenting on them now. Silly season is contagious.

Writing It Right

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in a homogeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own history and at the society in which Man lives. Both are changing. We know that the first man killed in the American Revolution was a Negro. We recognize the plight of illegal aliens and are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays a man will not pay for his girl's movie ticket – they'll go Dutch treat. We even let our wives pay for our meals when we go to the Chinese restaurant. We've done away with old and outdated practices which we viewed as evidences of our courteous culture. Prostitution, and other examples of sexual activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that we watch. In short, many of our practices have to be disabled and replaced with more tolerant ones. We will not be guinea pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be gypped.  We will not let ADHD, dyslexia, learning disability or other affliction hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of handicap to limit us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the Queen's English.

The thought is noble (if stilted), but the language leaves a lot to be desired. Problematic text is indicated. Talk is cheap, but cheap talk can be very costly. Better to speak softly and carry a big eraser.

But the computer is mightier than the pen, and Moosehead Industries has the answer – “EupheWriter.” It's a program designed to rid your text of any language that may be offensive to anyone.

Thus far there are five modules: GendeRighter, that makes any document gender neutered; ERace, that obliterates any race-based references; UnDocumented, to Americanize those whose citizenship may be in question; Expletives Deleted, which can change “R” language into “G;” and Kinder Gentler Words, which tones down the rhetoric against other targeted groups. The sensitive writer can use more than one module at a time, and in any word processor. An efficient way of accomplishing this goal is to purchase Soft Spoken, which includes them all. More modules are on the way. (The program itself was perfected by Anish Bandopadhyay, a Native American from Mumbai.)

The program functions in accord with your needs. You may choose to have it identify but not change questionable language (for example you may decide that “The Postman Always Rings Twice” should not be rendered “The Mail Postal Deliverer Always Rings Twice) or have such verbiage automatically corrected. Depending on your wishes, the corrections may be marked or unmarked. An example of an unmarked version of the text above might look like that which follows:

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Condemn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in an LGBTgeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own past and at the society in which people live. Both are changing. We know that the first individual killed in the American Revolution was a person of color. Everyone recognizes the plight of those seeking to become American citizens and they are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays an individual will not pay for their date's movie ticket – they'll each pay their own way. Many even let their partners pay for their meals when they go to a foreign restaurant. We've done away with time-tested and outdated practices which we considered as evidences of our egalitarian culture. Sexual work, and other examples of intimate activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that the visually enabled watch. In vertically challenged, many of our practices have to be otherwise enabled and replaced with more sensitive ones. We will not be Italian pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be cheated.  We will not let different learning, different learning, different learning or other different learning hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of physical disadvantage to affect us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the gender dysphoric's English.

As you can see, while it's very good it's not yet quite perfect. What is? (By the way, have you ever read the product of voice-to-text technology?) Version 2.0, on which we're working right now, corrects some of the problems. But individualization will remain a feature.

After all, to each their own.

Next episode: “Emphasis" –  That'll larn ya.

 

Past, Present, And Future

Arnold Toynbee, British historian (and well-known anti-semite: his most notable views expressed after the Holocaust were condemnations of Zionism and Israel for “the vicious disease of nationalism” and for committing atrocities on the Arabs, in addition to numerous references to “Judaic zealotry”) amazed by the longevity of the Jewish People, viewed it as anomalous. In volume 1 of A Study of History (1934), he wrote:

“There remains the case where victims of religious discrimination represent an extinct society which only survives as a fossil. .... by far the most notable is one of the fossil remnants of the Syriac Society, the Jews."

“Fossil” was one of the less pejorative terms Toynbee used, but Ezekial's prophecy was more accurate than Toynbee's history:

“I prophesied as I was commanded and the spirit entered them [the bones which represented Israel] and they revived. They rose on their feet, a very great multitude.”

That spirit has reentered the Jewish People, but the world is not happy about it.

Toynbee's bias, though shared by much of the world, was not universal. Eric Hoffer wrote,

“The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”

Earlier, Mark Twain had written

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race.  It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.  Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of.  He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.”

“The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

“The Jew saw them all [and] survived them all.”

And even earlier, our first (and arguably our greatest) President wrote of the Jew

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

But I am afraid.

Since its founding, the United States has had what can only be viewed as a sympathetic relationship with the State of Israel, and one that is mutually beneficial. And there has been a great deal of identification with Israel by the American public. In Gallup Polls, there has been a consistent preference shown by our citizens for Israel over the Palestinians, with the edge shown in 2013 as 64% to 12%.

Foreign policy, however, reflects the preferences of the President, rather than the people. During World War II, the Roosevelt Administration denied Jews on the St. Louis the opportunity to save their lives by entering the United States, and Roosevelt refused to bomb the railroads leading to Auschwitz – another course that would have saved Jewish Lives. On the other had, his successor, Harry Truman, recognized the State of Israel only a few minutes after it was proclaimed.

When Israel, in response to the request of Britain and France, joined in the effort to retake the Suez Canal after Nasser nationalized it, President Eisenhower threatened sanctions. But more recent Presidents have been increasingly sympathetic to Israel and have supported it. As Lord Palmerston said, however, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” In our country, those “interests” are decided on by the President, and our current President has decided that it is in our interest to side with Israel's enemies. As the President's Secretary of State put it, "We are gathered here because our leaders made a courageous decision to stop being prisoners of history." He spoke of Cuba, but it has been a hallmark of this administration to ignore past principles and seek “courageous decisions” which the President hopes will form a heritage for him. Agreements with Iran and other tyrannies in the Middle East, he feels, are among the “permanent interests” of our country. Our people's views and our history are irrelevant. Whether or not that history is principled, it is now inconvenient.

Perhaps the policy reflects his personal worldview, or perhaps it reflects a changing world – one in which the Muslim population, already very large, is increasing faster than others, a world in which there is extensive anti-Israel sentiment everywhere (especially among academics and their students), where antisemitism, one the world's few constants, is increasing in strength, as is the need for oil.

Our adherence to Palmerston's philosophy, however, is likely to make our other “friends” and “allies” nervous, since we have demonstrated that we place expedience over principle; we can't be trusted. And if Israel cannot rely on its most trusted ally, I am worried.

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.

Oh, Give Me A Home

                                                                            

What's the point of the whole internet project as it relates to our debt? Wrong question. It's in the singular, and there's no single solution to our economic problem, so there are several different points involved. In fact the project can't possibly solve it alone, and wasn't intended to. Indeed, though it will provide an important start, many additional projects will be necessary. But there are certain gains that can achieved through the use of a nationwide internet capability and it's worth rehearsing them.  So here are some suggestions.

The first is the backbone of the proposal – internet and telephone service from wherever you are in the United States and its territories.ⁱ With whatever device you own you can have internetⁱⁱ service wherever you are, even in a moving car or train. And there will be no dead areas between towers.

Next will be the availability of a state-provided computer for everyone. True, that computer will only get material distributed by the government, but governmental “connectedness” will allow for greater participation by all – from the President to the average citizen – in those activities that make our country unique. Only a few are mentioned, but American ingenuity can certainly bring us many more applications.

The various applications have advantages, however, besides promoting good citizenship. As was demonstrated, they also offer us, among other advantages, the opportunity for more efficient and less costly operation of the government. The elimination of a need for congressional buildings with congressmen and Executive employeesⁱⁱⁱ working from their homes will result in lowering governmental costs, as will the implementation of a cloud-based IRS. There would also be better tracking of taxpayers resulting in greater revenues at a lower cost.

It has to be remembered that an important impetus for the entire project is the desire to lessen, and, perhaps, ultimately eliminate, the National Debt. The outsourcing of many governmental functions will contribute to that goal. And that brings us to the final piece of this aspect of the puzzle. Once we have sent Congress and the President home, and the other criminals to foreign countries, once we have outsourced most of our functions and moved the rest to inexpensive parts of the country, and once we have limited the use of paper, saving huge forests while maximizing the returns from such natural resources as shale-oil, we'll possess one of the most valuable commodities that exists anywhere – one on which our country was founded – property. The Federal government is the largest land owner in the country with nearly 65o million acres. While some has to be retained as Indian reservations or military bases,^iv a lot becomes available when the functions served are exported, and some simply serve as park land. Many claim that the flora and fauna are a heritage we should leave for our children (along with the massive debt we're piling up for them now), but that could be accomplished by building an area where some of them can live and be displayed in their natural habitat, and the remainder could provide us with a large injection of capital, capital that could be used in small part to maintain those new habitats but would largely be transferred to payments on what we owe. Development of that property would also provide us with many, many jobs. And with the current economic situation, the prices of new homes in the beautiful settings available are likely to be quite attractive, providing residences amid America's spacious skies where we can dream our patriots' dreams, and simultaneously end current land management costs while putting the property on the tax roles.

But in addition to land, we'd have a lot more to offer. Were we to outsource our correctional functions, to India for example, many properties would become available. Some could be converted into condominiums or other housing. And the ample surrounding property, properly landscaped and provided with suitable amenities might make the new residences quite desirable. Imagine living in a beautifully remodeled National Historic Landmark with an unobstructed and stunning view of San Francisco Bay, with rock pools and a colony of seabirds, and with access by the nation's first hybrid propulsion ferry. It's a dream, and no security will be necessary. And despite its name, the development would be a windfall, rather than an albatross. Occupy Alcatraz! It gives the “occupy” movement a whole new meaning. And the governments – Federal and State – have many properties already developed and only in need of a little freshening up to become sources of income rather than burdens on the taxpayers.

Moreover we, the taxpayers, own many other developed properties around the country that could be sold with their land to private developers at large profits, and they could benefit us all by their annual tax payments to the Treasury. Additionally, some of what already exists should be considered for increased tourist potential. Washington DC, for example.

Once DC is emptied of politicians, outsourced services, and unneeded bureaucrats,^v many buildings and open land would be available for “repurposing.” Because of its history as the nation's capital, it is already an important tourist destination, but, with the internet in place and the government moved elsewhere, let me describe a District of Columbia that would be far more popular with both Americans and foreign visitors:

The White House would be converted into a luxury hotel. The congressional office buildings, printing office, and other unnecessary and abandoned buildings, would be leased to banks and to major corporations, foreign and domestic, as home offices. The Library of Congress would be subdivided into countless fancy restaurants, large and small, serving the finest cuisines from all over the world to people with a broad range of budgets. The National Mall, almost a mile and a quarter from the Capitol steps to the Washington Monument, would serve ideally as the world's largest outdoor mall,^vi while the Pentagon would be subdivided as an indoor mall. While the footprint of the Pentagon is not as large as the Mall of America, it has seven stories to the Mall's four, and combined with the proposed outdoor National Mall mall, and the giant food court at the Library of Congress,^vii there will be plenty of action for all who come to visit – and it's far more convenient than Minnesota.

The various national museums would remain, since the American heritage is sacrosanct, but they would be supplemented by additional facilities to emphasize our heritage. The Lincoln Memorial, for example, would be turned into an expanded version of Madame Tussauds with tributes to all our heroes from Pocahontas to Wolfman Jack. The Viet Nam Memorial would be a superb outdoor cafe. And most important, especially for tourists, a large theme/amusement park would be constructed. “DC Adventure Park” would, of course, be managed by DC Comics^viii, although Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are certainly part of our national heritage. A mechanical George Washington could throw dollars across the Potomac, Booth can assassinate President Lincoln, Michelle Rhee would distribute school vouchers, there's no end of sites that can be used as fun houses or chambers of horrors, and, as pièce de résistance, the Washington Monument could be converted into a parachute jump more than twice the height of the fabled ride in Coney Island.

And there's little doubt that, utilizing American know-how, we can come up with many additional projects for turning government owned and managed land into taxable private holdings, using the savings, as well as the sale prices, to cut our debt. (For example, wouldn't it make sense to transfer all the graves in Arlington National Cemetery^ix to some unused land in Iowa or North Dakota and build town houses on the site? And we could offer boat rides on the Potomac.^x) That's the goal. And a national internet will allow many additional projects to take place while promoting greater participation of all our citizens in America the Beautiful.

Keeping up with the times pays. And deer and antelope play more intelligently than elephants and donkeys.

Next episode: “All I Know” – And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

i      One of the many points not mentioned earlier was that additional charges can be applied for faster service.

ii     And GBS.

iii    Including the President.

iv     Though many of these functions could be merged with tremendous savings. According to WikiPedia,there are 149 active military facilities in the United States, 115 that are closed, and 94 overseas. Even if the numbers are a little off, it is hard to believe some cannot be merged. Except for the need for particular political members of Congress to have facilities in their districts, despite the cost.

v      That's almost all of them.

vi     If it isn't converted into a flea market.

vii   The Supreme Court can eat there. It would be inappropriate to move the Justices and turn them into the circuit riders they used to be. And how much harm can the jokers do with Batman there to watch them? (See following text.)

viii   You know – Batman, Superman, the Green Lantern and all that crowd.

ix     We should probably leave the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for old time's sake and because it's a good tourist attraction.

x      If you catch one of George Washington's dollars your next ride is free.