Monday, February 28, 2005

Happiness is......

The common view is that money and success are the ways to happiness.
Are they?
There is a story that challenges that idea.
It is the story of mountain men who experienced near starvation, days without water, the hot sun on the desert, freezing termperatures in the mountains and the constant threat of death from Indian attack--to reach Santa Fe. Once in Santa Fe, they planned to take merchandise from Santa Fe back to Missouri, sell it and become wealthy.
Yes, they believed the wealth they would achieve would lead to true happiness--until in Santa Fe they met this Mexican who obviously had very little. Yet, this Mexican was happy as a lark! He was happy without fame or fortune.
That made the mountain men scratch their heads and wonder if all they'd gone through really was the right road to happiness.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Miracles and Luck?

Challenge! Explain the difference. I dare you!

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Swift Boat Veterans and John Kerry

Did you see the television coverage (cable) of a meeting at which the Swift Boat Veterans Association was given an award for its campaign to defeat John Kerry in his bid for the presidency?
I did, and all I could say was: WOW!
I started seeing the swift boat television commercials blasting John Kerry on several fronts, all relating to his Vietnam service. The commercials generally presented veterans who'd served with Kerry during the war who to a man claimed he, Kerry, was unfit to be the nation's commander in chief. The president of the United States has that title, by the way, commander-in-chief.
When I first saw those commercials, I right away assumed the Republican Party was somehow behind them.
But, the television program about the award to the Swift Boat Veterans Association, proved that was not the case at all.
The rear admiral who commanded the swfit boats at the time Kerry served with them actually claimed to have organized the movement among veterans to oppose Kerry's run for the presidency. He said he did it because Kerry had proven an untrustworthy and incompetent officer when he served under him in Vietnam. The rear admiral went onto say how he put the organization together to oppose Kerry, even to the point of having one man write a book contradicting Kerry's book on his service in Vietnam.
I mean this rear admiral was angry about Kerry's service. Furthermore, he and the others who were present at the event in which the award was bestowed also criticized (as they did in a television ad during the campaign) Kerry's testimony before a Congressional committee while the Vietnam War still waged. Maybe you saw the tv ad about it. In it, Kerry tells of Americans fighting in Vietnam "cutting off heads" and other wise mutilating or killing innocent civilians. Later, we learned he did not present that testimony as something he'd seen, but rather from tales he'd heard from other Vietnam War veterans at a meeting somewhere.
Anyway, the Swift Boat veterans and some Americans who were POWs during the Vietnam War didn't forget Kerry's testimony all those years ago.
That's why the campaign was waged to stop Kerry's run for the presidency, they said.
Curiously, I think they also said they did not go into the advertising campaign until the big three television news networks, NBC, CBS and ABC refused to cover the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against Kerry. That raises the question: why didn't the big three networks cover the swift boats as a stgory? It seems like it was a legitimate story considering the people promoting it.
What a strange story, especially if you recall that John Kerry opened his speech at the Democratic National Convention flanked by people who had served with him in Vietnam. Kerry also saluted and said "reporting for duty" before he began to speak at that convention. Stranger yet.
Then the Swift Boat Veterans started running their television ads. Wow! How strong. One featured a whole lot of veterans, at least two of them wearing Congressional Medals of Honor. A voice-over the ad explained all of those veterans had served with Kerry's US Navy organization in Vietnam--and that all of them did not believe him fit to be president. Wow! Strong stuff!
It makes you wonder why Kerry took such a strong stand on his military service? I mean was he nuts? Were all those veterans nuts? Strange, strange story.

Friday, February 18, 2005

Pappy Boyington sells his book...and so does...

Several years ago now I chanced to be at one of the Confederate Air Force* shows at Harlingen, Texas, and I got to see Pappy Boyington, the famous World War II fighter pilot. I saw him at a table inside a big building in a sort of booth, that he, no doubt, had rented to sell and autograph his book. I can't remember the name of his book, but I think it was "God is My Co-Pilot."
You know of Pappy Boyington, right? He was in the Marine Corps and flew fighter planes in the South Pacific.
Back to his book signing session in Harlingen, though, the funniest thing had to be this:
--Pappy Boyington sat at a table at one end of a sort of row of other tables of people selling all sorts of things. There was a sign above him and then on space behind him telling people who he was and advertising his book.
--Now the crazy part: just around the corner from Pappy Boyington was another booth occuppied by guess who? A Japanese fighter pilot, and guess what the sign over his booth said: "The man who shot Pappy Boyington Down."
Now I don't know if they were friends or not, and I'm not sure who sold the most books. You'd think the Japanese pilot should have, but I doubt he did.


*The Confederate Air Force is an organization of aviation enthusiasts who collect, restore and fly aircraft from World War II. Those of you in the United States may be aware of it every summer when its members fly World War II aircraft all around the country and put them on display at airports. One of the most famous of its planes is "FiFi" a B-29 bomber. The Confederate Air Force is now located between Midland and Odessa, Texas.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

The trouble with history: historians

The trouble with history, I've decided is the historians. That is because too many of them do not take the trouble to research both sides, or sometimes many sides of a historical event before they write about it. The result is shallow at the least and dishonest at worst. I say that because there are so many incredible stories that historians just brush over or accept as fact what another historian has said about a particular historical event. No, I don't say they are merrly dishonest. I say they cheat the students of history, particularly those in high school and below.
I give some examples.
Herbert Hoover is portrayed in American history (in the United States anyway) as the person who caused the Great Depression in the United States in the late 1920s. That is about all you learn about Hoover, too, from the typical American history class.
But....if you, as I did, chance to read the "Memoirs of Herbert Hoover," you get a whole new slant, even an appreciation and admiration of the man and his accomplishments.
Just some that come to mind are that: he was an orphan; one of the first graduates of Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., (the school the people who contributed to have it built determined would be the "Harvard" of the West Coast); a mining engineer who traveled all over the world in search of minerals; a mining engineer who became extremely wealthy; a man who, at the request of the American embassy in Great Britain saw to it that thousands of American tourists stranded in Europe at the beginning of World War I made it safely home; organized and ran the Belgium Relief Commission, to ensure that the entire population of Belgium and northern France (both cut off from normal food supplies by World War I) got fed despite of the British blockade of Germany and the menace of U-Boats; a man who saw to it after World War I that all the countries in Europe, including Russia, that needed food to get their populations through "until the next harvest" got it; served as food administrator in the United States during World War I; was a confident and insider on the negotiations to end World War I with Woodrow Wilson; had an incredible career as US Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Harding and Coolidge; and would have had an interesting presidency had it not been crushed by the weight of the Great Depression. And, by the way, he did not take a salary and paid his own expenses in all his public service, from the time he served on the Belgium Relief Commission until the end of his presidency. In fact, as secretary of commerce, he took his salary to pay the salaries of four assistants.
If you are bored sometime, read Hoover's memoirs. There are three volumes, and they will convince you (as all true stories do me) that non-fiction is always better than fiction.

Another disappointing history is a series of books on the American Revolution by Rise of by Page Smith, a history professor at one of the California universities, UCLA, I think.
His writing style is wonderful, and I enjoyed reading his books--until I found a couple of serious errors in his alleged reports of historical events.
One example: he alleged (as many other historians have) that the British Army band played "The World Turned Upside Down" as the army surrendered at Yorktown. Yorktown, to those of you who may not know, was the final and most decisive of the battles of the American Revolution and ended the war.
Anyway as to Page Smith and his story about the song being played when the army surrendered? Not true. I have done some research on the topic and have found that there is no mention of that in any contemporary documents or letters/diaries/other accounts written by people who were at the surrender: American or British. The first mention does not come into American histories until the 1840s or so, and there is no clear evidence from anything presented to suggest a source for that. Some other well-known historians picked up the story to add to their histories, probably because it sounded like a good American story. Good story, but, alas, as far as I can determine, not true! Not true! If it's not true, why waste space in a history book to tell me that?
I suspect Professor Smith picked up the story from one of his student's term papers, by the way!
Another curious story about the American Revolution picked up by Professor Smith which I can tell form my own research is not, cannot be true, is his account of two men who served on opposing sides in the Albany, New York area, during the war. What is that story? He tells of two men, one a sure enough villain and the other purely heroic.
The villain is Walter Butler, a man whose father, John Butler, had long been associated with one of the most influential British officials among the American Indians, William Johnson.
The story, according to Professor Smith, was that Walter Butler was a scourge of the American frontier around Albany during the war. He was blamed for leading raids by American Indians that resulted in the horrible massacres of men, women and children at some frontier settlements.
Professor Smith goes onto tell the story of Walter Butler and some of his Indian and British Rangers being chased into the wilderness as they sought to escape an American force. Butler, alas, is shot and killed on the bank of a stream, and his body left to rot by the heroic American soldier.
News of Butler's death caused great joy among the settlers in the Albany, New York area because they believed with his death the Indians would no longer be a threat.
That is Professor Smith's story.
Alas, in my own research, I don't know that I reach another conclusion about the results of Walter Butler's death, but I do get another view of the man and his role in the American Revolution.
That view is that Walter Butler was a British soldier, but he was not nearly as important as his father, John Butler, in the war waged by the British and their Loyalists and Indian allies.
I also have learned that that prior to the American Revolution there were bloody battles among settlers who challenged other settlers to land in the areas, especially the Wyoming Valley, a three mile-wide strip of exceptionally good earth stretching along a river (I can't recall the name)in New York state or eastern Pennsylvania. These battles were waged by settlers from Connecticut who believed (based on the colony of Connecticut claims) that the land belonged to that colony. Furthermore, since it did, these Connecticut colonists believed, apparently, they could push others who occupied the land off (including Indians), and some of them did just that: pushed others occupying the land off.
One story I've read tells of an American Indian delegation going to the colonial government in Connecticut to protest the settlement of the Wyoming Valley because the land belonged to them and they never had sold it to anyone. Officials in Connecticut seemed to have agreed with the Indians, but they put that issue aside as the American Revolution began. I do not know if the Indians ever pursued their claims again in Connecticut because at the end of the revolution the land in question became part of Pennsylvania or New York. The Indians and their claims are not mentioned.
The gist of all this is, therefore, that when the American Revolution came along, it presented a legal opportunity for war in some of the areas described above.
The Butlers joined the British side, as did some other settlers in the area, but they eventually lost, all of them. Walter Butler lost his life, but the Loyalists who lived in the area lost their homes to the Americans who won. Many of them, the Loyalists, went to Canada after the American Revolution.
Anyway, getting back to Walter Butler and Professor Smith? The conclusions are that Walter Butler played a role, but not a major one in the American Revolution and that whatever atrocities attributed to him are not based on solid fact; and that those who joined the revolution were sometimes as cruel and mean as the British and their Indian allies are often portrayed.
Long winded? Yes. I hope I've made some worthwhile points. I will be reviewing this over the next few days to edit etc.;
If anyone else has some ideas on this, fire away!

Friday, February 11, 2005

Fakes and Frauds

The whole business about Ward Churchill being a fake Indian reminds me of the fake Vietnam War veterans, or at least one that I knew.
The fellow was in the Air Force Reserve with me, and I frequently heard him complain about being exposed to Agent Orange. One day after one his tales of woe due to Agent Orange, I decided to learn more about his case.
Question: Who did he serve with in Vietnam?
Answer: Marines
Question: Where did he serve with the Marines?
Answer: Marble Mountain.
Question: What did he do with the Marines?
Answer: Accounting clerk.

Conclusion: Chances of him being exposed to Agent Orange were remote, if not impossible. I was in Vietnam and know Marble Mountain was a base camp, a support facility. The nearest place Agent Orange would have been used had to have been many, many miles away.
So, he lied. Curious how many people do that.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Mark of Zorro?

I saw some people with strange black marks on their foreheads today, and all I could think of at first was "Mark of Zorro!"
Then it hit me: Ash Wednesday!
They were really the marks of the priest.
Shoot! Shoot! Shoot!
Zorro would have been more fun!

Friday, February 04, 2005

My football team does not have to win for me to enjoy the game!

I live in Columbus, Ohio, a major league city as college football goes, and those of you who do not know, the BIG football power here has been ripped by scandal after scandal after scandal recently.
Why?
All of the scandals go back to one thing: winning! Winning is EVERYTHING! Win at all costs!
The "at all costs" business is when college football gets in trouble, as it has gotten in trouble here.
Some examples:
--The number one quarterback last season had to sit out a bowl game in San Antonio after having been found to have taken money from a fan.
--The head football coach and athletic director, both well-paid, are among the coaches getting free, yes, I said FREE automobiles to drive. They get them from an automobile dealership--that for its trouble--gets to buy tickets to football games. No one has said, but the tickets probably get the best seating in the house. That makes you wonder: what else they are getting FREE! Oh, yes, not only coaches, but their wives also get FREE, yes, FREE, cars!
--The head basketball coach was fired, let me, see, yes, I think it was last year, for giving a player money. Quite a sum of money, as I recall. Like in the several thousand dollars.
My only view of all this is that "winning" is not everything to me in football. I love to watch a good game, and even if my team loses, I still enjoy the game. Oh, I root for my team, but if it doesn't win, I know my life doesn't end. Neither does football. There's always next week or next season.
This weekend I will watch some, if not all, of the Super Bowl. I do not have a team in the game of the year (which often doesn't turn out to be THE GAME OF THE YEAR), but I like New England for the attitude of the coach, the quarterback, Tom Brady, and the coach's use of players on both sides of the line. Things like that, things out of the ordinary make football games fun.
Masters of that, making football fun, were Bud Wilkinson, the long-time ago coach for the Oklahoma Sooners and Tom Landry, the long-time Dallas Cowboy coach.
Both men had a knack for inserting a play or maybe a couple of plays into each game--that would take your breath away when you saw them. I recall once Tom Landry sending a play out that called for the offensive line and center to line up on one side of the field with a back of some sort behind it. Then a running back and a one or two other players lined up clear on the other side of the field. The play didn't work, and I never saw it again. Yet, when I saw it it was: "WOW!"
Bud Wilkinson and Landry were the Hopalong Cassidys of professional sports, the good guys no matter what.
I remember watching Bud Wilkinson's television program when growing up in Oklahoma. The sponsor was a milk company, and the thing I recall for sure about Bud Wilkinson's TV program was his telling people: "Drink your milk."
Thinking back, I bet there was a power surge in Oklahoma when he said that because everyone opened the door of their refrigerators go get themeselves a glass of milk.
My favorite play with a Wilkinson team, by the way, was the quick kick! It'd usually happen on third down and a ton of yards to go. The center would hike to ball to a half back who would catch it, stand up and punt! If he got a good kick, the other team would be backed up in its end of the field.
I still remember the BIG games the Cowboys and the Sooners played and LOST! For the Sooners, it was getting beat by Notre Dame in the late 1950s to stop a streak of games one at 47. I've never forgiven Notre Dame for that, but I will always remember all the great games Bud Wilkinson and his teams gave us, the fans.
The Cowboys GREATEST game, in my mind, was the one they lost to the Green Bay Packers in, let me see, the late 60s in Green Bay. They called it the ice bowl it was so cold. The Packers won in the last few minutes, if not seconds of the game. Great game. How I hated for the Cowboys to lose, but, my, the wonderful seasons Landry and his Cowboys gave me. I wasn't the only one who enjoyed the Cowboys. Some of you may remember they were the most watched NFL team for a while, so much watched that they were called, "America's Team."
The end of all this is the same as the beginnin: a good football game is fun to watch! Oh, yes, it's great if my team wins, but my world doesn't end if it doesn't. No one elses does, either.
Yea team!


Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Booze and Driving

An Ohio Supeme Court justice faces drunk driving charges and, based on all accounts, she should.
She may wiggle around the real serious punishments that can result in some drunk driving cases, but she will forever be remembered for having been caught breaking one of the most anti-social laws on the books today.
I sympathize with her because, I must admit, I got caught just over a year ago and faced the same charges. My blood test was under the legal limit by several points, and the ultimate result was I was not convicted of drunk driving. I still had to pay $2,200 in legal and court fees, however, which is a lot of money out of my pocket book.
While I objected to the fine, I took the message seriously: don't drink and drive. In fact, after the $2,200 bill, I decided to stop drinking altogether. I did it although for years and years I was a moderate to heavy social drinker because I always found people I liked at bars.
But, guess what? Since I quite drinking, I don't miss it at all. When I do go to a bar, I buy a diet soda--which costs about 25 percent of the price of a tiny glass of booze or beer! So, I save money, plus I find that ignoring the booze in no way detracts from my having a good time at a bar.
So my message to all is this: don't drink, period! Heck, I don't even drink altar wine any more! I say this because if I can quit, anyone can.
I'm pleased I quit and can never imagine a circumstance when I will have another drink. I did the same thing with cigarettes, by the way!
One of the jokes used to be that to get a college degree in journalism you had to take three hours of cigarette smoking and drinking. I took many, many more hours than that, and it had nothing to do with getting a degree!
So, life changes. Talk about coming clean? An newspaper reporter who doesn't drink or smoke! Yes, here is one!