Friday, April 22, 2011

Resurrection Of The Grammar Cop

(NOTE: This is written in tribute to the late, great Forrest Seymour, Pulitzer Prize winning editorial writer and my first editor at The Worcester Telegram & Evening Gazette.)

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

As Passover further morphs into Easter Sunday, now comes a Pedant (who shall remain anonymous for the purposes of this posting) who has fingered Yours-Truly with regard to a certain matter he is very concerned about.

You see, this is a World-Class Grammarian, or to put it another way, one who is a self-appointed Guardian of the English Language and how Correct Grammar is employed -- something, by the way, that I'm all for.

More specifically, he objects to my occasional Habit of ending a sentence with a Preposition, or a word such as "of, with, or on." Because I occasionally "sin" grammatically, he asserts that my writing is something he can do without.

(I have a strong hunch that the World-Class Word Usage Cop is actually a Practicing Evangelical Fundamentalist Grammarian, Professional Parsing Sect, and I've had this notion about him before...)

To which I say, "Right On!"

When one writes, especially when the writer is a Metaphysician such as I, there's only so much one can do to persuade others about the matters I want to get across.

The Grammarian should understand that I have, over the years, attempted to write for others to express their points of view -- about a matter they are either for or against.

As of late, however, I write for myself about issues and topics that I particularly like.

For example, politics and entertainment are a couple of old, standby topics I can really sink my teeth into.

Whether or not another soul gets the point I try to make is not of consequence: it's the chance to make a point (or two) that gets me by.

But let's get back to our Grammarian and what he is concerned about...

With respect to this literary criticism, I make this solemn vow regarding all of the above.

I shall strive never to over employ Prepositions, to end sentences, in future metaphysical ramblings where I want to drive my point across.

But be warned about everything I have written just above: I'll need a lot of Practice before I get this ability down.

I'll grant this: I have lots of new stuff to go over ...

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Bagged By The "Leak"

As Passover morphs into Holy Week, I thought I'd rant a bit about one of my favorite subjects: Modern Journalism.

I had the opportunity earlier in the week to encounter a real-life, Honest to Dog working journalist. It happened at one of our Kiwanis functions. (It's rather a Bitch being a dyslexic metaphysician, n'est pas? But I digress...)

The reporter had been assigned to "cover" my Kiwanis Club's 50th Anniversary Celebration. I happened to miss a recent Breakfast Meeting, and as Punishment I was "elected" to be the Emcee for this particular event.

By way of some background, and since 1961, our Kiwanis Club has returned more than $30 million back to the community from revenues generated by our Thrift Store operations -- and that's definite grist for another post later.

Back to our night of celebration, I was tasked (metaphysician such that I am) with the opportunity to be interviewed by the reporter. As you might surmise, I layed it on pretty thick about all of the charitable works we have undertaken over the years.

As a major part of our program, I mentioned that we were going to honor 20 students in attendance with $6,000 scholarships per each student. That adds up to $120,000 in scholarships awarded during One Program on One Night, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I also mentioned we were going to donate $20,000 to Kiwanis International / UNICEF as our Club's pledge to contribute $100,000 towards eliminating maternal and neonatal tetanus worldwide. My Kiwanis Club was the first, internationally, to make such a commitment in an effort to irradicate one of the world's worst health scurges to plague mothers and infants in the equatorial regions.

As a side note, I also informed the reporter about our School Back Pack Program, through which we provide three days' worth of nourishment to about 1,000 needy kids and their families to tide them over each weekend during the school year.

We cheerfully and gladly invest about $5,000 each week into this program, which we conduct in partnership with the Harry Chapin Food Bank.

I figured that my mention of a mere three of our programs would give the journalist plenty to write about, especially since this was an evening event and the reporter, more likely than not, would be under pressure of meeting a News Deadline.

In any event, the Press had never, ever, strung all of these important, community-enhancing projects together before into one news Story.

You may, or may not, relate to my dismay the next morning when I read the article -- published on Page B-4 below the Fold -- that our Kiwanis Club was just about to engage in a programming partnership with the County YMCA.

Any mention of mine about all the good work we do in our Community was compressed into a one-sentence quote.

At least the Journalist spelled my name right, but did the newspaper really have to print my age?

Scheesch ...

Indeed, we are in negotiations with the YMCA about their rental of a facility we are about to acquire ... but I had sworn everyone involved in the negotiations to Secrecy -- until a deal was inked and the ink was dry. The possibility of making any agreement with the YMCA lay far down the proverbial road.

About 11,000 things could go wrong -- now I am thinking since the proverbial Cat Is Out Of The Bag on this, about 10,500 bad things have just surfaced -- any one of which is capable of sending any deal with the Y Due South.

I comprehended one important Fact: the Reporter did not conjure this Story Angle out of Thin Air.

Ergo: someone from the Kiwanis Side must have "leaked" confidential information. I also understand the Leaking To The Press Concept, developed at Yale University, that "leakers" do so with self-serving interests.

So the question is: why would anyone want to Trump our 50 years of proven achievement with an obtuse story angle based on a Broad Reach?

Who blabbed?

A metaphysician such as I would solve this Riddle with one Arm tied behind the back -- that is, if one such as I wanted to devote time to it.

But, what the Hey: the damage had been done, and, besides, it took place on the Night After Passover (which some Observants refer to as "Pass Out.")

Anyway...

Pretending that the YMCA/Kiwanis deal was of no real consequence as far as the story went, I attempted to call the Journalist, to "lobby" so-to-speak for a follow-up story on those matters that were obviously overlooked in the original story on B-4.

After spending about 20 exciting minutes On-Hold listening to a Computer-Generated Voice (female) about my Office Directory Options, I threw in the proverbial Towel.

I would have had more Luck if I had made an attempt to cold call the Marine Commandant at Camp Gitmo.

In the far recesses of my mind, I recall the days when newspapers emphasized comprehensive and accurate reporting of Community News.

Sadly, I'm more convinced than ever that those days are Long-Gone.

But since my age is now public Knowledge, you may now refer to me as "The Dinosaur"...

Monday, April 18, 2011

"Atlas Belched"

Ayn Rand is back in the news -- as if she ever left...

Conservatives, especially the NeoCons and the Tea Party types, are currently hyping the conversion of Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" into the wide-screen format.

Seems as though this crew considers the movie version a "must-see", right up there with that other cult fave of theirs, the forgettable Mel Gibson film, "The Passion of the Christ."

In case you're somewhat out-of-touch on such matters, "Atlas Shrugged The Book" showcases Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, which can be reduced to (in 20 words or less) her belief that an individual with intellectual ability will prosper best in an environment devoid of all types of regulation.

The book is essentially a 1,000-plus page rant about a woman who wants to run the family railroad. In that process, she gets into fights (essentially) with government regulators and the union.

Of course, she wins! Oh, and by the way, the novel also showcases hordes of other major and minor Rugged Individualists whose sole motivation in life is to screw the other guy.

Indeed, "Atlas Shrugged" takes on government regulators and union bosses -- a couple of topics near-and-dear the the hearts of the Tea Baggers and their ilk.

But "Atlas" contained much, much more "meat,"as we like to say, on a few other matters of importance, such as Individual Sexual Freedom, Feminism, and Atheism.

I often wonder whether or not  the Tea Bagging, Bible-Thumping, Palin-Loving, Flag-Waving, and Obama Loathing Crowd knows this.

Assuming they don't, I will now let the Cat out of the Bag.
  • Concerning Atheism, Rand created characters who have absolutely no use for religion in any form.
  • Concerning Sexual Freedom, Rand's characters engage in sex because it is, well, enjoyable -- and it's Fierce Fun!
  • Regarding Feminism, Rand formulated one of the truly great "I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar" characters of the 20th Century.
Because of all of the above, and much more, I have this very strong suspicion that the Tea Baggers and the NeoCons -- the Poster Children of the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists --  have never, ever really, really read this work.

I say this because, if they actually had, they would have a few bones to pick with Ayn Rand's core points. Ask yourself: how can this Crew tout any novel based upon the belief that the Intelligent Individual trumps all -- and since it's all about Me, then there's no room left for believing in any deity?

How can this Crew come to terms with another of Rand's philosophical premises: that a Sexually-Free, Liberated Woman may choose to have an abortion in order to maintain her Intellectual Individual Freedom?

"Atlas Shrugged" contains several other conundra that the NeoCons should figure out before they go any further down the Road of their Alternative Nonparallel Universe.

You can judge all these matters for yourself if you're so inclined. Stop by your local Thrift Store and get the book in paperback form for a half a buck, and then take a few hours, days or weeks to plough through it.

And as far as the movie version goes, I think I'll pass.

I can take only so much Laissez Faire.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Words of Wisdom From DDE

Take a few minutes to read Dwight Eisenhower's final address to the nation, delivered a few days prior to his departure from the White House in January of 1961 for the warmth and comfort of his farm in Gettysburg.

I assure you, you won't be disappointed -- especially if you're in the mood for a substantive, civil and statesmanship-like assessment of the Good Old U. S. of A.

It'll be well worth your time.

Most of us remember DDE's last speech for its cautionary tone regarding what he termed the "Military-Industrial Complex" and how we Americans must bring balance to our interwoven desire for national security and domestic prosperity.

Ike recognized better than almost anyone else that shifting this balance in favor of military spending would strip the nation of vital resources to sustain every other sector of the economy.

Sound like something you have heard about before?

What strikes me, more than 50 years later, is the gracious and civil tone of his words -- especially as they concern his long-standing relationship with Congress as a whole.

I have to compel myself to remember that the political climate was much calmer back in those days -- even as it was in the days in the late 1970s and 1980s when I worked as a humble aide to a United States senator on Capitol Hill.

Unlike present times, partisanship had its limits...

Given the complexity of our nation, our World, and our respective societies, Ike's last speech elevates him to the level of True American Statesman -- in its vision of America, its grasp of complex national problems, and its charge that every citizen has a sacred obligation to make our country a better place...

... for us, for our children, our grandchildren, and for theirs everafter.

Herewith Ike's Final Speech (reprinted below from his Public Papers verbatim).

__________________

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
II.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
III.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
  • and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Lies, Untruths and Imponderables

We watched "A Few Good Men" the other night.

If you'll kindly recall, that's the film about a preppy Navy JAG (Tom Cruise) playing Cat and  Mouse with a grizzled Marine Colonel (Jack Nicholson) to get to the bottom of a murder at Camp Gitmo.

The money scene occurs when Cruise has Nicholson on the witness stand, boring in on The Colonel's involvement in the murder cover-up. Tom's zeroing in on the truth of what went down -- when Jack, in all of his arrogance, screams: "You Can't Handle The Truth!"

Fantastic Proclamation!

Indeed, can we handle what is actual, what is real, and what is true?

To a metaphysician such as I, we have entered Fertile Ground -- right up there with the moral conundrum posed in other great flicks such as "Hollywood Confidential" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit."

In thinking about The Answer, I prefer to use the Yale University Method: whereby all available evidence, from any source, be it Earth-Bound of Extra-Terrestial, may be factored into the Logic in order to arrive at a Plausible Conclusion.

You, on the other hand, may decide to employ the Harvard University Law School Case Book Method -- but be warned! You may be short-changing yourself.

Now that that's off my chest, let's take a stroll down the Dilemma Highway and explore...

MORALITY Q.#1

Is it Okay to post a photo of yourself on your Face Book Wall, one that's 45 years out-of-date?

If you're in my league, you also have "Friends," too numerous to mention, who have actually done this. Why not throw in the towel and concede that Time has taken a bit of the bloom off the Rose? I'm just saying...

The fact remains: your photo is "of you" at some distant point in Time ... but it's not "of you," as you are today.

So the conclusion to MQ #1 must be: a dated photo may be "real" but is, indeed, not "actually real."

QED: Untrue. (I said I was using the Yale Method...)

(Disclosure time: To resolve this issue personally, I have decided to use (on an alternating basis) A: a very recent photo taken of me in Vermont; B: a photo of what I shall become someday, a Plant; or C: A characture of Sylvester The Cat.)

MORALITY Q. #2

You're at the doctor's office and he/she is about to perform a Bone Marrow Biopsy. You inquire: "Will this hurt?"

As the Doctor approaches your bare backside with an implement resembling a Cork Screw, you hear these reassuring words: "This won't hurt a bit."

In fact, Doctors undertake a special 20-hour training course in Medical School to prepare them how to answer questions like this one.

What he/she really meant to say is this: "Well, this isn't going to hurt Me!"

So the conclusion to MQ 2 is: It's your Butt that's lying there buck-naked on the table, not the Doctor's. Medical Ethics permits him/her to place all blame on the Cork Screw. The pain, however, is actual and it is real.

QED: Lie -- but the procedure is designed to save that Butt of Yours. Under the Yale Method, we cut the Sawbones Some Slack.

(Using the Harvard Case Study Method, the inquiry would have to include others, such as Dentists who approach you with a seven-inch long Novacaine Needle and Radiologists who perform Mammograms. Harvard also offers a post-graduate inquiry examining the exact number of Angels that can actually fit onto the point of a Cork Screw.)

MORALITY Q. #3

Your CPA has just handed you your Form 1040 Tax Return. Its girth resembles that of the New York Yellow Pages.

He/she turns to the last page and instructs you to "Sign Here."

Before you apply your John Hancock, you ask: "Do you think I'll get audited by the IRS this year?"

Your CPA looks you dead-in-the-eye and answers: "None of my clients have ever been audited. You should have no problem."

Three months later, you get a computer-generated letter from the IRS stating it will send an agent to your place of business or to your residence, to commence an Audit of your Income Tax filings for the last seven years.

Pending the outcome of the audit, the IRS further states, all of your bank accounts will be frozen.

So you phone your CPA with this news, reminding him/her of the fact that none of his/her clients have ever been audited by the IRS.

To which he/ she tells you: "Well, there's always a First For Everything."

The conclusion to MQ #3, therefore, must be of course, you agree that there must, in fact, be a First Time For Everything -- but little did you know that you would find yourself in this position.

QED: Imponderable. The conclusion is rather simple: extensive research into the Question at Yale University clearly demonstrates, on a consistent basis, that CPAs write and speak a Language of Riddles totally beyond the comprehension of most. Their Inner Circle specifically refers to this Language Form as "Cover Your Ass."

(Harvard recognizes this and, in response, it has developed an entire Course Study Method on how to train lawyers in the Fine Art of Litigating against CPAs.)

So there you have it. Three inquiries on Moral Matters affecting many of us. But why stop there?

Have fun employing this Method analyzing other Moral Questions such as:

"Is my Congressman telling me the truth about what's really going down in DC?" and;

"You really need to have that $1,000 brake job done on the car."

The metaphysician awaits your conclusions to these, and other matters of import.