"Lincoln" Movie Review

Spielberg Lincoln Movie Review

It is difficult to review any Lincoln movie.   By general consensus of those who knew him in his time, Lincoln was 'one of a kind'.  This 'one of a kind' attribute is perhaps why there are more books written about Lincoln than any other person outside of Jesus.  Perhaps this also explains why there are so few movies made about Lincoln.  Just how does any actor go about duplicating a personality that was 'one of a kind"?  The  movie failed to recreate that character and physical duplication simply because the task is too great.  Historical accuracy was decent enough, the conversations were plausible, although of course mostly fiction, but there is simply no way to create the atmosphere, tension, and tumultuous nature of the time.  It is simply a case of 'you had to be there' to fully appreciate the magnitude of this conflict over slavery.  Here is one case where reading about the era is much more likely to impose a realistic and emotional appreciation than a any movie. 

Movies have certainly perfected the ability to create images, tension, horror, humor, suspense, action scenes, mysteries, etc. But to recreate Lincoln and the times in which he lived is just a task beyond all modern technology. Below are some selected memories of Lincoln written by those who knew him. This is simply not the Lincoln portrayed in the movie, albeit the actor gave it his best shot. 

Joshua Speed (probably his closest friend): "Mr. Lincoln was a social man, though he did not seek company; it sought him. After he made his home with me, on every winter's night at my store, by big wood fire, no matter how inclement the weather, eight or ten choice spirits assembled, without distinction of party. It was sort of a social club without organization.  They cam there because they were sure to find LIncoln.  His habit was to engage in conversation upon any and all subjects except politics.... "

Issac Arnold (political ally): "His conversation was original, suggestive, instructive, and playful; and by its genial humor fascinating and attractive beyond comparison. Mirthfulness and sadness were strongly combined in him. His mirth was exuberant, it sparkled in jest, story, and anecdote; and the next moment those peculiarly sad, pathetic, melancholy eyes, showed a man 'familiar with sorrow, and acquainted with grief.  I have listened for hours at his table, and elsewhere, when he has been surrounded by statesmen, military leaders, and other distinguished men of the nation, and I but repeat the universally concurring verdict of all, in stating that as a conversationalist he had no equal.  One might meet in company with him the most most distinguished men, of various pursuits and professions, but after listening for two or three hours, on separating it, what Lincoln had said that would be remembered.  His were the ideas and illustrations that would not be forgotten.  Men often called upon him for the pleasure of listening to him.   I have heard the reply to an invitation to attend the theater, "No, I am going up to the WHite House.  I would rather hear Lincoln talk for half an hour, than attend the best theatre in the world. "

At no point in watching the movie did I feel such awe at the dialogue or the actor. How could the actor or the script be able to recreate such an experience?  The actor did not butcher the Lincoln character so much as fail to duplicate Lincoln. It is not like if someone else had portrayed LIncoln the movie would have been better. 

Henry Clay Whitney (fellow attorney): "He probably has as little taste about dress and attire as anybody that ever was born: hew simply wore clothes because it was needful and customary; whether they fitted or looked well was entirely above, or beneath, his comprehension......While outside of his mind all was anarchy and confusion, inside all was symmetry and method.  His mind was his workshop; he needed no office, no pen, ink and paper; he could perform his chief labor by self-introspection."

William Herndon (Law partner): "He exercised no government of any kind over his household.  His children did much as they pleased.  Many of their antics he approved, and he restrained them in nothing. He never reproved them or gave them a  fatherly frown. He was the most indulgent parent I have ever known. ...the boys were unrestrained in their amusement.  If they pulled down all the books from the shelves, bent the points of all the pens, overturned inkstands, scattered law-papers over the floor, or threw pencils in the spitttoons, it never disturbed the serenity of their father's good nature"

John Littlefield (law student) "Lincoln did not seem to have any pleasures common to men of the world.  He was not a great eater nor a drinker...Lincoln impressed me as a man who had arrived at a point in Christianity without going to church that others struggle to attain, but do not reach, by going.  I never in all  my life associated with a man who seemed so ready to serve another"

Secretary of State William Seward to others at a gathering. "I have always wondered how any man could ever get to be President of the United States with so few vices. The President, you know, I regret to say, neither drinks nor smokes."  "That,", answered the President, "is a doubtful compliment.  I recollect once being outside a stage in Illinois, and a man sitting by me offered me a cigar. I told him I had no vices.  He said nothing, smoked for some time, and then grunted out, "It's my experience in life that folks who have got no vices have plaguey few virtues." 

"It is not too much to say that it was rare to converse with him a while without feeling something  poignant.  Every time I have endeavored to describe this impression, words nay, the very ideas, have failed me.  And, strange to say, Mr. Lincoln was quite humorous , although one could always detect a bit of irony in his humor.  He would relate anecdotes, seeking always to bring the point out clearly.  He willingly laughed either at what was being said to him or what he said himself.  But all of a sudden he would retire within himself; then he would close his eyes, and all his features would at once bespeak a kind of sadness as indescribable as it was deep.  After a while, as though it were by an effort of his will, he would shake off this mysterious weight under which he seemed bowed; his generous and open disposition would again reappear.  In one evening I happened to count over twenty of these alternations and contrasts."

At any rate, to the extent these accounts of Lincoln by person's who knew him carry any weight, then there was no such Lincoln in the movie. And to the extent Lincoln was really 'one of a kind' then he truly 'belongs to the ages' and no movie can bring him back. 

Gun Control

Gun Control

This is an issue which I have essentially avoided.  The two sides are so entrenched and reasonableness so unattainable that it just seemed a waste of time. But here goes some charging at windmills. 

This seems an issue best approached with some generalities before confronting specific pathways to any conclusion.  

The following paragraph you might want to skip over. While in my mind it is an appropriate historical reference to the issue, it is not the substance of the rest of this musing. 

Violence begets violence---Americans, for all their constant talk about the violence of others has historically been one of the most violent countries since it's inception. This is not so much in terms of any outright genocide or primitive gang like slaughter and rape of any groups, but---in terms of total body count, or economic and political exploitation---America has been the clear winner. We have invaded more countries, killed more citizens of other countries, established more military bases in other countries (around 700), used more weapons of mass destruction than any other country, and currently are spending more money on military matters than all other industrialized countries combined.  As a consequence, with a government that has repeatedly used violence as the means to an end, it's attempt to instill in it's own citizenry any aversion to violence towards each other has been limited.  It has been almost like violence as a solution is wrong UNLESS sponsored by government with mercenary troops, under the guise of freedom and national security--supported by God, the cheers of sport fans at major sport events, and with the blessing of patriotic clergy of all faiths.  It is almost like Government organized mass killings of others, in the name of national security is patriotic duty, whereas individual killing of others, in the name of personal safety, need, or anger is criminal. 

Any society which has a massive imbalance in it's distribution of wealth or power is going to find itself entrenched with endless incidents of violence.

Any pluralistic society, in which there are highly organized intolerant religious sects, will find violence and injustice against non believers as necessary under the guise of the Will of God. America has been fairly good at religious tolerance. 

To the extent any of the above is true, this only contributes to 'sane' violence, the kind of which is understandable. The rapid increase in suicide/mass killings violence is a beast of another stripe.  These people are almost always mentally ill. Mentally ill people are by the very nature of their illness, unpredictable. 

Gun control has, as it's premise, the notion if people don't have guns or are restricted as to the kind, number, or location of their guns, then fewer homicides will follow. Those against gun control argue that people have a right to defend themselves and their families and that when more people are armed, fewer homicides will be attempted, less home invasions, etc.

These two positions are not totally without data for or against them.  For a start we need decide whether we are talking about guns kept inside a home or guns allowed to be carried outside homes. Then of course is the issue of what kinds of guns should people be allowed to own.  Add to this the question of whether guns of any kind can really be made unavailable. There are a lot of things illegal to possess which most anyone can get if they really want. Entire illegal industries exist to provide the illegal substances or objects in question. 

For starters we need recognize there are many ways to kill a person if the determination is great enough----shooting, stabbing, poisoning, bombs, physical assault, etc. These kind of homicides are near impossible to stop. Perhaps no type of law can stop these kind of homicides. The only answer is to create the kind of society and culture which does not foster this kind of behavior. Some cultures across the globe simply do not have a high homicide rate. Ours is not one of them. For these kind of homicides we have found the enemy, and it is us. Cultures do not change overnight.  We also should realize that the current human overpopulation of our planet fosters increased homicidal behavior. The world human population has doubled in my lifetime. While current population growth is faster in some areas than others, it makes little difference. The crucial point here is that the more people fighting for a share of limited natural resources, the more homicides there will be.  In the near future, energy, food, water, pollution, climate changes, species extinction, etc. are all going to push human conflict to survive. Without any global enforced responsible reproduction, nothing else we do matters all that much---homicide rates will rise, exponentially. 

For the sake of academic banter here, we will ignore human over population and all the resulting stresses about to push everyone right up against the wall.  Instead, we will do what we do best of late---simply pretend all of this is not really coming down the pike.  After all, God would not let this happen to his favorite species, would HE/SHE?  Of course not, anymore than God would let a mentally sick person kill 20 kindergarten kids.  It just seems if God has created a system in which kindergarten kids can be killed this way, then we probably need give a bit more thought as to just how much protection God is giving any of us personally regarding his own laws of evolution.  I just can't envision God saying, "Reid, I have your back, but those 20 kindergarten kids are on their own". The reality is, if we dare to think about it, there are millions of kids that age dying a far more cruel death in refugee camps across the globe----and the rest of us humans, collectively, let it happen.  We are far more concerned about whether millionaires need pay a hefty tax on their wealth. They used to, but times have changed and many feel the wealthy have every right to sequester their huge wealth in some sort of family dynasties.  Jesus and every other major prophet of any major religion would be so proud of this. 

Back to gun control. Okay, we have established that the mentally ill will not be affected by gun control laws and the current contest amongst them to see whose mass killing/suicide can be the most repulsive and create the most anguish to others will proceed, no matter what the gun control laws are. As long as they get the endless publicity for their action, the attraction to copy or top previous actions will just grow stronger. 

Some homicides are spur of the emotional actions.  Anger explodes, clear thinking eliminated, a gun is accessible and that is all she wrote. People who think having everyone packing a gun in public is a safety measure must live in a different world.  I suspect most of us can think of instances when, if we had a gun, maybe we would have used it.  Personally I would not bother to carry a gun in public.  In almost all cases we don't realize we are being robbed until we see a gun staring us in the face or pressed against our back. It seems, at that point, reaching for a gun might not be the most brilliant idea. Most of us are not so quick that we can reach for and pull out a gun before the robber squeezes a trigger. Of course the robbers might not be adults, they might be teenagers with no gun, just a knife or already have you in a head lock demanding your money. At that point we would have the delightful realization that they not only are going to get our money, but our gun.  Emotionally crazed teenagers with a gun is not exactly an environment for sane behavior.  We may indeed feel safer with a gun strapped to our side or inside a coat, whatever, but not too many robbers announce a block away: "Ready or not here I come with my gun to rob you". The old fashioned western shoot out is not exactly realistic. Of course we may simply be sitting on a park bench feeling all safe and enjoying the view or weather with our gun strapped to our side and some young teenagers see the gun and feel a need to acquire it. The odds are great that by the time they grab us, and we realize their intentions, the gun will already be theirs. Hey, we thought they were supposed to be afraid of us if they saw we had a gun. Back to the drawing board. 

Ok, this kind of bantering does not effectively prove anything. The truth is we don't really want to consider evidence. Evidence does exist. 

Let's for example consider those top states with the highest gun death rate per capita vs those states with the least gun death per capita. 

The top 5 states with the least gun death rate per capita are below in order:

1. Hawaii----death rate/100,000 pop = 2.2;  percentage of people who own guns=9.7

2, Mass----death rate=3.4; percentage of people who own guns=12.8

3. R. I.----death rate= 4.9 percentage of people who own guns= 13.3 %

4. New Jersey----death rate= 4.99;  percentage of people who own guns= 11.3

5. New York----death rate=5.28; percentage of people who own guns= 18.1

The top five states with the greatest gun death rate per capita are below in order:

1. Louisiana---death rate per 100,000 pop= 19.04; percentage of people who own guns=45.6

2. Alaska---death rate=17.4; percentage of people who own guns=60%

3. Montana---death rate=17.2; percentage of people who own guns=60.6

4. Tenn---death rate=16.4; percentage of people who own guns= 46 .4%

5. Alabama----death rate= 16.2; percentage of people who own guns=57.2%

The states have the strictest guns laws:  Calif, New Jersey, Mass., N.Y., Ct,. Hawaii,

Md, R.I., IL, Penn.  

The states have the weakest gun laws: Arizona, Alaska, Utah---in fact all the weakest gun law states are red states with the exception of Vt, Maine, N.H. 

The states with the most per capita prisoners are: Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, and Ct. (Ct?---doesn't seem to fit)

What is interesting is that those states with the weakest gun laws, the harshest penalties, the most conservative politics, the greatest number of religious fundamentalists, and the toughest talk about crime ("We don't tolerate criminals here, and if you break our laws you are going to pay a stiff price"), the most homicides from guns, and have the most people in jail for crimes are all red states with almost no exception. 

The statistics I couldn't find are those which compared those states in which people are allowed to carry guns in public with the incidence of robbery, public gun deaths, assault, and frequency of the gun being stolen.

To me, enough evidence is available to confirm that gun control goes a long way in helping to curb the number of homicide deaths. Certainly New York and New Jersey have huge urban ghetto populations and you would think lead the way in homicides per capita. But they don't and just happen to have strict gun control laws. It also seems evident that societal culture plays an important role. Religious views, political views, tolerance level, and harshness of attitudes toward the different/ poorest, and least fortunate amongst us does make the red states stand out. These are always the states last to grant others rights, the states with the lowest minimum wage, the states with the severest criminal penalties, the least fair judicial systems, the weakest support for health care, and the strongest supporters of gun rights. If groups of people are told enough ways that they don't count enough times, at some point they don't care about others either. 

In summary, lest this go on too long (I know, it already has)---gun control affects the number of homicides, but so does culture, politics, and religious intolerance. 

As for suicide/mass murders---nothing much probably will reverse this trend until those who commit these ghastly crimes get no publicity from their acts. Of course they are not around to appreciate the publicity they got, but then nothing they did makes sense. These people have an emotional malfunction, a Central Nervous System malfunction----not always evident or the particulars known before these heinous acts are committed.  We hardly can commit every person who is a loner, socially inept, and behaviorally strange. The number of people who are 'potentially' dangerous in our society is huge. The number who will actually commit one of these ghastly crimes is small. To identify them in advance, in most cases, is probably beyond our current capability. 

Parents feel a real need these days to keep their kids in controlled environments around the clock. Kids learn to fear strangers today much more so than say 60 years ago. Gone are the days when parents told young kids----'You be sure to be back for supper or you will have to make your own supper". What all this means for society beats me.  Gone are the days when kids were like my generation---when I returned home from a day of 'adventure' (which in many cases was boredom) and my mother asked "What did you do today?" the answer would likely be "nothin', just hung out with some friends." "Well what friends?" "Why is that important? I don't bug you with who you chatted with every day" "Well you must have done something with somebody"  "Nothing worth mentioning, just the usual stuff, you just always trying to be nosy". 

But I can tell you something I never did-----worry about getting shot or stabbed at school, getting molested by someone I hitched a ride with to get from here to there, or ever felt free to disrespect an older adult who reprehended me for bad behavior. For practically a mile in each direction we knew just about all the adults (and kids too) and the nearest adult was always in charge. Misbehave and parents never sided with their kids. The verdict was always the same: "Do that again and you won't be going anywhere. I don't like getting phone calls about you being a problem, period. Don't be a problem, that's the verdict."  One time a teacher had me taken to my father's office for some kind of misbehaving in class. I did win that one, my father didn't want me around for the day either and told the teacher, "When he is not in class he is my responsibility to discipline and control, when he is in your class, that is your problem. You can report misbehaving in class and I will deal with it, but you can't send him to me for babysitting." I really disliked that teacher, she was a witch in my mind.  She lived to be 95 or so and my mother tried to get me to contribute money for a gift and write a tribute. My answer was simple: "Like hell".  Where was an assault gun when I needed it?

Countries With Highest Homicide Rates per 100,000 people (not in order)

Belize---34

Burundi---37

Central African Republic---30

Columbia---40

Congo---35

El Salvador---52

Guatamala---45

Honduras----61

Jamaica---60

St. Kitts---35

South Africa---37

Trinidad---40

Venezuela---47

Zimbabwe----34

Countries with lowest homicide rate per capita:

Algeria --- .64

Australia---1.23

Austria----.58

Belgium---1.8

Burmuda---1.6

Canada----1.7

China---1.2

Denmark---1.4

Egypt----.84 (2008)

France---1.4

Germany----.8

Greece---1.1

Italy---1.2

Japan---.45

Lebannon---.56

Morroco---.4

Netherlands---1.0

New Zealand----1.25

Nigeria---1.3

Norway---.64

Poland---1.2

Portugal 1.2

Saudi Arabia---.85

Switzerland----.72

Vietnam----1.85

rate in U.S, : 5.22

Each of you can do your own interpretation of this data. I am too lazy to go and examine the gun laws in each country, which would be informative. 

For me, I have already listed gun control, religious intolerance, culture, politics as impacting on homicide rates. I might guess that culture plays a major role in the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland. They have had a laid back culture for a long time.  In countries like Vietnam, Poland, Japan----maybe their recent history with internal massacres by foreign countries has made them particularly repelled by killing. The Vietnamese watched us kill 2 million of them over a decade and maybe they learned that killing is not a good thing. They probably associate killing with horror. We didn't have to watch our own people die right in front of our eyes in that war and thus we still see violence as a possible means to an end. 

It also is noted that countries with the least homicides have little religious strife. These countries are pretty settled with a particular religion or they are known for religious tolerance. It doesn't seem many, if any, of the countries with the lowest homicide rate have strong religious zealots. In fact in many of these countries with the lowest homicide rate church attendance is notoriously low. 

I am surprised that Egypt, Nigeria, and Algeria have such low homicide rates. 

For those countries with high homicide rates the most common thread seems to be an acceptance of violence to solve political or religious differences. Poverty may contribute but there are many equally poor countries with a low homicide rate. Wherever there is a culture highly driven by the accumulation of wealth or power homicide rates seem to soar. Look at how much higher our homicide rate is than Japan, the European countries, Canada, and China. Enough is never enough has been an American mantra from the start of our nation.  One might wonder, if America had taken the advice of George Washington to avoid foreign entanglements and become a giant Switzerland what our violence culture would be today. Instead we were always going after somebody, almost always out of self interest for their natural resources, or to dictate the kind of government they could have, etc.  I think the last time we went into another country to help them defend an invader was Korea. 

I never have understood why we can never say to other countries "As long as you sell your natural resources to us at global market prices, the rest of what you do is your business." Ensuring that American Corporations own industries in other lands is unethical. There is less of that today and it seems our corporations do have to compete more to get whatever in a foreign country. Now it is time to question just exactly why we need 700+ military bases all over the world. How many 'lost' wars is it going to take before we realize that engaging ourselves in another country's internal war is hopeless? Starting with Vietnam we have lost every such war of that sort, and the carnage for us, and even more so for them, is just unconscionable. We badly need to take care of our domestic needs and forget about spending more on military matters than all the other industrialized countries combined. The obsession for all this military stuff is markedly harming other aspects of our society---education, health care, infrastructure, parks, scientific research, new energy source development,  fighting global warming, protecting natural resources, etc. 

My own personal opinion about gun control, at this point in time, is that it is ok to own and keep a gun in your home, but never ok for carrying it around.  As for hunters---there are so few real old fashioned hunters today that this is a minor group to placate. Only guns used by hunters should be available to purchase, no automatics, no assault rifles, etc, should be legal for anyone. The red states have failed miserably to demonstrate any benefits to weak gun control. All the stats demonstrate that. 

Finally, I just read where the NRA has proposed there be a policeman in every school. They are at least consistent. They have never made a proposal which did not involve increasing the number of guns in our society and favorable to the gun industry.  For this guy in Ct, the only change in his plans would have been to take out the lone cop first, then proceed.  I suppose, when more guns doesn't prevent much of anything, then they will suggest that each of us be supplied with an assault weapon, a personal body guard and a Sherman tank. I was a member of the NRA for many years----not that I ever signed up, but they signed me up and refused for years to remove me. Never paid a dime in dues or anything, but they needed lots of names so they could claim huge membership. I had to threaten to go to the state attorney general before they would remove my name. At least they didn't shoot me. They are just like irrational religious fanatics, only guns are their religion.  Guns don't kill people, it's just that people with guns too often kill people. 

Why??? The Newtown Massacre

Why?

These suicide/mass killings are increasing at a exponential rate. And it almost seems like a contest gone out of control, where each succeeding suicide/mass killing tries to outdo the other. Killing a handful of people in a shopping mall is no longer notorious enough, so maybe taking out 20 kindergarten kids will set a new standard of repulsiveness. 

I reckon few of these individuals who commit suicide and take others with them are not known to be unstable, troubled individuals. A major problem is this: just exactly what are people, who know these individuals are dangerous, to do about it?  There are no really good options for them most of the time.  I taught young adults most of my life in university settings and have seen my share of these unstable individuals. 

A few examples come to mind. I was a new Professor at this one university and was a PreMed advisor in addition to my teaching assignments. The Chairperson called me up and said she was sending a student down for advising, to get her class schedule for the semester worked out.  Ok. I go over her previous record of courses and we start picking courses for her to take the current semester.  She was cooperative enough, just seemed a bit tense.  But just when her courses were lined up she said she wanted to take Biochemistry.  Trouble is, she already had taken Biochemistry and gotten a B.  "Well", she said, "I didn't really earn a B and need to take the course over". I suggested she take it over, if she wished, some other time, get these newer courses out of the way. But she insisted she wanted to take it over now, while it was fresh in her mind. Ok. I let her.

When class lists came out I got a call from the Chairperson, "Reid, what the hell did you do?---you put that gal in Mary's (not real name) class. She has already had Biochemistry". I explained she wanted to take it over. "Reid", damn it, she was in Mary's class last year and tried to shoot her. I sent her to you so she would have someone neutral." So the police came to the first class and bodily removed her from the class. To my knowledge she never tried to kill anyone again, but for all I know maybe she did. The point is, there was a potential problem and nothing much was done about it. What should have been done about it? Beats me. Another potential bomb ticks away.

Another time a student came to me in a science course for non majors (Physiological Aspects of Drugs and Drug Abuse) and told me he had a handicap and needed special help. The handicap? He couldn't remember things very well. 

That certainly doesn't sound like a handicap that bodes well for college but there he is, admitted to the University and in my class.  I told him I have no training with such a handicap so can't judge what I should or should not do for him.   So I do what most everyone does.  I punt.  I tell him whatever special must be done for him must come from an administrator in writing.   And the notes came, one after another: the student needed to have another student xerox their notes for him; the student needs take home exams, etc. I have no idea what a take home test in a science course proves.  The answer to a question is either in the class notes or the book and if he couldn't find it himself, someone else maybe could.  And it gets better. This student had graduated  cum laude, or one of those categories, from junior college. He was now a senior at the University. I never said boo about the situation to him since it would have been evidence of my obvious prejudice.  At the end of the term I had no idea what grade to give him. He was a non science major, his ignorance of physiology was not going to cause harm to any patient so I give him a B.  His exam scores were excellent, just like the scores would be for anyone permitted a take home exam. I have no technical basis to give him a lower grade. Not a single person ever complained about his special treatment----not any other student, not any administrator, and not me. The student arrived in my office just after grades came out. The guy was livid. Why didn't he get an A? This was only the second B he had ever gotten in college. For me, enough was enough. I told him, "Much as I like you personally we both know a B is a gift. If you don't want me to re-evaluate the grade and the whole process whereby you got such a grade, and not be so gift giving you better disappear as quickly as you can.  Fortunately he did. The point? Here is guy everyone knew should not be in college, but he was let in and graduated with an amazing GPA. What is going to happen to this guy when he hits the job market? I can just hear the job interview. "What kind of courses have you taken in the area of _______? Answer: "I don't know, I don't remember."  If this guy snaps some time down the road where would be the surprise? Even a normal person would have trouble handling going from cum Laude to unemployable.  Remember, he went beserk because he got a B. What will he do when he can't get a job or retain one? Another ticking time bomb. 

Next example: A Professor a few doors down from my office comes into my office and asks for advice. She is not in my department. It seems a student sits in the front row and exposes himself to her during her lecture. She is middle aged, sensitive, and not an ounce of toughness in her personality. Why come to me, I hardly knew the gal except for hello's in the hallway. Seems someone told her a lot of students were always waiting to see me because many of them were there with personal problems. That's an exaggeration but ok, what's the problem? Again, I do what most everyone does, I punt. I feel very sympathetic to her but also know anything I do would be considered the wrong person to have acted, and if anything I did backfired it would be blamed on me---not the right person to be involved in the problem.  So I tell her she is best to explain the problem to her department Chairperson.  Safe advice but worthless. The Department Chair will refer the problem to the Dean, the Dean to the Academic Vice President and somewhere along the line Campus security will be alerted, come into the classroom, remove the student and the student will be dropped from the class. Fine, except the question by the Professor involved as to whether this person is a danger to her will not have been answered. I don't know what she did. She never came back with any follow-up. My guess is she ignored his game, the semester ended and the student was no longer in her class. The can gets kicked down the road for another time, another place, maybe a rape at some point. 

Final example: I had this energetic, inquisitive, excellent student in a class who always sat in the front row and bubbled with enthusiasm and got excellent grades. Wonderful success story in the making.  Suddenly he starts sitting in the back row way off to the side and all the enthusiasm was gone. Hard not to notice. He comes into my office all tense and asks if he can trust me with a problem, to keep it to myself.  I know right away this has nothing to do with my class, nothing to do with my field of expertise, and has danger all over it. But we do our ethical duty in such a case and say 'Go ahead'. Well he had inadvertently witnessed some sort of gang crime, I forget now whether it was just a brutal beating or a shooting. At any rate the guy was scared to death the gang was going to 'eliminate' him as a witness.  He couldn't sleep, he couldn't study, he was afraid they might hurt his mother, the whole nine yards.  He sat in the back of the classroom off to the side so no one coming to the class and peering through the door would be able to see him.  Reality was clear enough. If he did turn them in the gang would claim he was part of the gang and was the one who did the beating or the shooting.  And of course the life of his mother or himself would be real danger.  What do we do in these situations?  We punt. We protect the potential victim. first things first.  I ask him whether he has any relatives anywhere he could stay with for a while. He has an uncle in Wisconsin.  I never tell him what to do, just present options to him.  He disappears and I get a note months later with no return address saying 'Thank you'.  Fine, he is safe but yet another potential mass shooter is free to go out of control another place, another time.  These suicide/mass murderers tend to leave a long trail of people who know they are unstable and dangerous. No one, including myself, has any notion of how to reduce their danger to others and we simply find ways to get them out of our own pathway. The can keeps going down the road, and we never know for whom the bell may toll.   

I was lucky. Science courses tend not to attract most of these emotionally and mentally unstable students.  And I had a personality which caused the Chairperson to prevent such KNOWN students from enrolling in my section.  When another Professor would enquire why student X could not be put in my section, the Chairperson would  remark, (She was cool in her own way): "Oh for Christ's sake, use some common sense, Reid is off the wall himself, and says things to students which normal students struggle with, let alone putting a student like that into his section." On the other hand, I always agreed to take a student which another instructor found intimidating or disruptive, but not emotionally or mentally unstable. The intimidating kind are another ball of wax and rarely were a problem for me. How to handle them is another story.

Now, to the answer as to why these suicide/mass murderers do what they do. I guess many people would come up with different answers. To me, it seems in many cases to be this: If the kidney doesn't function right, you get abnormal urinary function. And so it goes with other malfunctioning organs. If the part of the brain that deals with emotions and feelings malfunctions, then a person may have varied forms of emotional pain that don't go away. They can't go away as long as that organ malfunctions.  Suicide may be the only answer they can generate. Perhaps some of these people not only want to end their pain, but they want others to feel the same kind of emotional hurt from which they have had to deal with for so long a time. "Nobody understands the pain I feel, well they will when I take so many people with me as part of my suicide." It is like these social rejects are going to teach us all a lesson about emotional pain. I guess they succeed. 

No matter what is the reason why, the next question is how can we stop these kind of events? The ability to prevent any possibility of these events happening in terms of protecting potential victims is nonexistent. The American public right now is as well armed as Iraqis. It would take decades of intense personal invasion of rights to ever get these guns out of circulation. And for these suicide/mass killers, bombs would just replace guns. Google can help with that. Make the class rooms more secure? Good luck with that. Kids still have to go to and from school, or play games on fields, etc. 

No one can take classified information about our country and publish it or share it without fear of imprisonment. By having divulged confidential information, our national security is compromised. Very well, the same logic leads to the same conclusion here. The name and history of someone who commits a suicide/mass murder should be confidential, and anyone who breaches this or writes anything about the person should face imprisonment. It is clearly the notoriety which drives this ever increasing occurrence of these suicide/mass murders. Everybody talks about it, everyone knows all about the person who did it. Even when psychologists correctly detail the mental state of the shooter, it offers no solution as to how to have stopped it. This latest guy was home schooled and friendless with no criminal record---is that an offense for which he could have been arrested?  Such a shooting is a way for someone who feels like a nobody, mired in futility and anguish, to at least be somebody who everyone will know about, and those close to the victims then feel the equivalent kind of emotional pain of the shooter. In other words, as long as this is a way to become notorious and well known, some people who commit suicide will find this scenario attractive. How can they find it attractive? Look, I can't even figure out why anyone would commit suicide by jumping off a bridge or stepping in front of a train, etc. There are a lot more painless ways to end one's life.  As long as this kind of event is a path to fame and notoriety, it will remain attractive to some.  It gives new meaning to the phrase, "No pain, no gain."  In other words our pain becomes their gain. If we can't remove the notoriety that comes with this kind of suicide, the frequency and degree of repulsiveness attendant to it will have no limits. This an age of problems fraught with complexity, global in nature, with increasingly potential devastation to human life on our planet.  

Maybe Alice, of the Honeymooners, might opt to go to the moon these days. 

Physical Descriptions of Lincoln by His Contemporaries

"Soon afterwards there entered, with a shambling, loose, irregular, almost unsteady gait, a tall, lank, lean man, considerably over six feet in height, with stooping shoulders, long pendulous arms, terminating in hands of extraordinary dimensions, which, however, were far exceeded in proportion by his feet. He was dressed in an ill fitting, wrinkled suit of black, which put one in mind of an undertaker's uniform at a funeral; round his neck a rope of black silk was knotted in a large bulb, with flying ends projecting beyond the collar of his coat; his turned-down shirt-collar disclosed a sinewy, muscular yellow neck, and above that, nestling in a great black mass of hair, bristling and compact like a ruff of marching pins, rose the strange quaint face and head, covered with its thatch of wild republican hair, of President Lincoln." (William Howard Russell, special correspondent of the Times of London)

Henry Villared (Journalist): "We venture to say that Fifth Avenue snobs, if unaware who he was, would be horrified at walking across the street with him. And yet, there is something about the man that makes one at once forget these exterior shortcomings and feel attracted toward him."

Edward Dicey (British Journalist); "Personally, his aspect is one which, once seen, cannot easily be forgotten.  If you take the stock of English caricature of the typical Yankee, you have the likeness of the President. To say that he is ugly, is nothing. To say that his figure is grotesque is to convey no adequate impression. Fancy a man sex-foot, and thin out of proportion, with long bony arms and legs, which, somehow, seem to be always in the way, with large rugged hands, which grasp you like a vise when shaking yours, with a long scraggy neck, and a chest too narrow for the great arms hanging by its side; add to this figure a head, coconut shaped and somewhat too small for such a stature, covered with a rough uncombed and uncombable lank dark hair, that stands out in every direction at once; a face furrowed, wrinkled, and indented, as though it had been scarred by vitriol; a high narrow forehead; and, sunk dee beneath bushy eyebrows, two bright, somewhat dreamy eyes, that seemed to gaze through you without looking at you."

E. W. Andrews (Minister, Lawyer, Soldier): President Lincoln was so put together physically that, to him, gracefulness of movement was an impossibility."

Lincoln's private Secretary: "Lincoln's features were the despair of every artist who undertook his portrait."

Francis Bicknell Carpenter (Artist): "It has been the business of my life to study the human face, and I have said repeatedly to friends that Mr. Lincoln had the saddest face I ever attempted to Paint. During some of the dark days of the spring and summer of 1864, I saw him at times when his care-worn, troubled appearance was enough to bring tears of sympathy into the eyes of his most bitter opponents."

Frederick Douglass (Abolitionist, former slave): "On my approach he slowly drew his feet in from the different parts of the room into which they had strayed, and he began to rise, and continued to rise until he looked down upon me, and extended his hand and gave me a welcome. I began, with some hesitation, to tell him who I was and what I had been doing, but he soon stopped me, saying in a sharp, cordial voice, "You need not tell me who you are, Mr. Douglass, I know who you are. "

Nathaniel Hawthorne (Writer): "By and by, there was a little stir on the staircase and in the passageway; and in lounged a tall, loose-hointed figure, of an exaggerated Yankee port and demeanor, whom, (as being about the homeliest man I ever saw, yet by no means repulsive or disagreeable,) it was impossible not to recognize as Uncle Abe.....There is no describing his lengthy awkwardness, nor the uncouthness of his movement.....He was dressed in a rusty black frock-coat and pantalooms,unbrushed, and worn so faithfully that the suit had adapted itself to the curves and angularities of his figure, and had grown to be an outer skin of the man. He had shabby slippers on his feet. His hair was black, still unmixed with gray, stiff, somewhat bushy, and had apparently been acquainted with neither brush nor comb, that morning, after the disarrangement of the pillow; and as to a night cap, Uncle Abe probably knows nothing of such effeminacies. His complexion is dark and sallow, betokening, I fear, an insalubrious atmosphere around the White House; he has thick black eyebrows and an impending brow; his nose is large, and the lines about his mouth are very strongly defined. 

The whole physiognomy is as coarse a one as you would meet anywhere in the length and breadth of the States, but, withal, it is redeemed, illuminated, softened, and brightened, by a kindly though serious look out of his eyes, and an expression of homely sagacity, that seems weighted with rich results of village experience.  A great deal of native sense; no bookish cultivation, no refinement; honest at heart, and thoroughly so, and yet, in some sort, sly---at least, endowed with a sort of tact and wisdom that are akin to craft, and would impel him, I think, to take an antagonist in flank, rather than to make a bull-run at him right in front. But, on the whole, I liked this sallow, queer, sagacious visage, with the homely human sympathies that warmed it; and, for my small share in the matter, would as like have Uncle Abe for a ruler as any man whom it would have been practicable to put in his place. "   

Walt Whitman (Poet), On Lincoln's face: In technical beauty it had nothing---but to the eye of a great artist it furnished a rare study, a feast and fascination. The current portraits are all failures----most of them caricatures......I have never seen one yet that in my opinion deserved to be called a perfectly good likeness; nor do I believe there is really such a one in existence."

Carl Shurz (German American political supporter): "His greatest power consisted in the charm of his individuality. That charm did not, in the ordinary way, appeal to the ear or to the eye.  His voice was not melodious; rather shrill and piercing, especially when it rose to its high treble in moments of great animation. His figure was unhandsome, and the action of his unwieldy limbs awkward. He commmanded none of the outward graces of oratory as they are commonly understood. His charm was of a different kind. It flowed from the rare depth and genuiness of his convictions and his sympathetic feelings. Sympathy was the strongest element in his nature."

Bram Stoker (writer): "He (Lincoln) was the ugliest man I ever saw, but when he began to speak his face became transformed and what a face it was then, it seemed somehow lit from within, as if his very soul was shining through. In such moments he seemed inspired and looked almost beautiful in his strength." 

Douglas Wilson on Lincoln's appearance when he first appeared in New Salem: "He was ungainly, he was penniless, he was uneducated, he was poorly and eccentrically dressed, and he was notably unhandsome". 

A.K. McClure (Senator who went to visit President elect Lincoln in Springfield): "I went directly from the depot to Lincoln's House and rang the bell, which was answered by Lincoln himself opening the door. I doubt whether I wholly concealed my disappointment at meeting him. Tall, gaunt, ungainly, ill clad, with a homeliness of manner that was unique in itself, I confess that my heart sank within me as I remembered that this was the man chosen by a great nation to be its ruler in the gravest period of history. I remember his dress as if it were yesterday---snuff-colored and slouchy pantaloons; open black vest, held by a few brass buttons; straight or evening dress-coat, with tightly fitting sleeves to exaggerate his long, bony arms, and all supplemented by an awkwardness that was uncommon among men of intelligence.  Such was the picture I met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. We sat down in his plainly furnished parlor, and were uninterrupted during the nearly four hours that I remained with him, and little by little, as his earnestness, sincerity, and candor were developed in conversation I forgot all the grotesque qualities which so confounded me when I first greeted him. Before half an hour had passed I learned not only to respect, but, indeed, to reverence the man." 

An eyewitness (to the Cooper's Union speech in New York) that evening said, "When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, - oh, how tall! and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man." However, once Lincoln warmed up, "his face lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man."

Living Alone

Living ALone

I suppose this is a topic which I can speak to with authority. Hardly. There are many reasons why people live alone, as many as why people live with others. This being an obvious point, it still set me back recently when I read where more than 50% of American adults are now single. Wow, that is a real change from when I was young. I know that for sure. What is going on here? What does this all mean for our society? What is causing all this? 

I accidently attended a lecture recently which I knew was about modern American Society. What I didn't realize was that the lecture was specifically about Living Alone. It was by a Professor of Sociology, Eric Klinenberg. It was an interesting lecture, funny, intriguing, and filled with information about these people who live alone. I liked the lecture enough to buy his book----Going Solo. Professor Klinenberg does not live alone, he is married with 2 kids. 

Anyway, perhaps the following data and info is of general interest to most of us. After all, this is a huge change taking place before our eyes. In 1950 only 22 percent of American adults were single. Today, roughly 50% of American adults are single and 31 million of them live alone. That is 1 out of every 7 American adults living alone. I can understand myself living alone. When I was like 12 years old my goal in life was to be a hermit. When my parents had unexpected company I escaped through my bedroom window to the neighbors. If the company was not unexpected I had already escaped elsewhere. So much for my formative years. 

In my productive years, if invited to social events outside of work, regardless if I had agreed to attend, when the time came, I rarely did. That is not to say I did not have limited close friends, co-inhabited with others for periods of time---that sort of thing. When I move I always just start all over, never attempt to maintain friendships from the past with few exceptions. Once separated by distance there is nothing more in common and nothing is the same. So, I just skip the process of slow disentanglement and abruptly disappear. I never go to reunions of any sort or at least rarely. I have 16 cousins and we were all quite interactive when young but I have only been to one reunion with them, maybe 10 years ago. It was interesting, but once is enough. I coached crosscountry and track in high school just for two years back in the 60's and grudgingly went to a reunion with former team members i coached maybe 8 years ago. I was in my mid twenties back then and they were teenagers. At the reunion I was years retired and they were near retirement. Again once is enough for that sort of thing. The past can never be recreated. 

Be all that as it may, these 31 million people who live alone are clearly not mirror images of me. So what is going on? The author calls people who are not married singletons. What we know is this: In the last 50 years the average age of marrying has risen by five years. So there are these early singletons. Then comes marriage and half the time marriage doesn't last so again comes more singletons. People who divorce often stay single for years or decades or just stay single. The older the age of divorce the more likely they are to become permanent singletons. 

People who live alone make up 28% of American households. In 1950, there were 500,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 34 living alone. Today there are 5 million. 17 million women live alone today and 14 million men. The elderly account for 10 million of the total. 15 million are between the ages of 35 and 64. 

So why is being married becoming such a difficult lifestyle? The author points to several factors. The acquired more equal rights for women in the workplace and elsewhere is one. In 1950 there were two males for every female in college. Today, there are more females enrolled in college than males. Since 1950 the proportion of women in the workplace jumped from 33% to 60% today. Put simply, women have financial options they did not have before. Many are not economically trapped in a marriage situation. Add to this the communications revolution. In the past, if you were single and lived alone, you were kind of isolated socially. Today, with cell phones, face book, chat rooms, tweeting, twittering, etc. people can find various kinds of social interactions on all these devices. I once passed a yd were some sort of backyard social was going on. Maybe twenty relatively young persons together in a back yard. What was noteworthy (to me) was that all but one were on their cell phone chatting away with someone not at the gathering. I have seen couples at a restaurant and during the entire meal one of them chatted with someone on their cell phone. I think their partner must have felt rather alone even though they weren't. 

Now add this to the situation: many people today live alone because they can afford to. It is probably no coincidence that the greatest percentage of people living alone are in more affluent countries. And among the affluent countries, the highest percentage of people living alone are in the more socialistic countries in which basic human needs are met collectively through taxation. In other words, people figure their education is guaranteed, their health care is guaranteed, housing is guaranteed, jobs sometimes are, so the person feels secure going it alone. In poor countries, the percentage of people living alone is very small. 

Klinenberg points out that living alone and feeling alone are not the same. The goal of most people is to not feel alone. Those in a bad marriage often say there is nothing lonlier than living with the wrong person. The same goes for some college roommate pairings. Interestingly, College dorms today find single occupany dorm rooms in high demand. By the time a student gets all their gadgets hooked up there is no room nor need for any roommate for social communication. 

More young people today remain skeptical that any intimate relationship can last a lifetime. Change is always the operative word in evolutionary time. And that includes all of us. We are not the same person at one age as we were at another. Thus, in any relationship the danger is that the two partners will change in ways which create disconnection. The belief that what God puts together let no man put asunder is a horrible accusation of the ineptitude of God. Clearly these match-ups are not made in Heaven.  

The common perception today is that more and more young people are forced economically to return home and live with their parents. The number of young people age 25 to 34 living with their parents has gone since 1960 from 11 percent to 14 percent. Not a huge change. 

Some young people see living alone as a means to enjoy sexual freedom, to avoid difficult roommates,  to enable them to socialize when they want, how they want, to focus more on their careers, etc. Of course there are also those who live alone precisely because of their own social ineptitude, physical unattractiveness, and all sorts of personality reasons.

Not surprisingly, singletonians tend to congregate in urban cities. This is where  large diverse social opportunities are available to meet a wide range of cultural and unique lifestyles----and to do it in a social environment tolerant of such diversity. 

Another factor encouraging living alone is probably a huge change in how many children now have their own room----their own personal space. Not too many decades ago children shared rooms with their siblings. In this sense, by the time modern children reach adulthood, they are already used to living alone with their own personal array of communication gadgets, including their own TV. It is probably not too great an exaggeration to say that a lot of people not living 'alone', but living with others, are substantially living alone, that interaction with others in the same house is minimal. Even at meals, if they all eat together, there may be considerable gadgets at hand to communicate with others elsewhere.  Of course a parent could say "No one can use cell phones, video games, cell texting, etc. while at the dinner table BUT this often just creates an environment where people glare in silence and rush through their meal "Can I go now?"

The current economic times do not encourage early marriage. For many career conscious young people the 20's is precisely the time not to get married.  And many employers enjoy the luxury of demanding overtime work or their employees run the risk of losing their job. Gone are the days when job security reigned and salary promotions were expected till retirement. The bottom line looms large for many employees and that means letting go of older competent employees and replacing them with competent younger ones at a much lower salary. Thus, for a generation constantly looking over their shoulder, marriage can be economically risky for many young people.  They simply do not know what tomorrow brings. 

Of course single people tend to go more often to bars, nightclubs, eat out, take classes, attend public events, go shopping, etc. than their married counterparts. Some employers favor single people. That is to say, it is understood that married employees have to go home by a certain hour, that they can't work on weekends, etc. The notion of a huge herd of singletonians out there bed hopping several times a week or dating a small army of potential partners is way overblown. Data shows that 49% of singletonians have had no more than one date in the previous three months. 

What effect does all this easy access to sex on the internet in all sorts of forms and venues have on individual sex lives, including underage kids? Klinenberg didn't go into this and I am not sure the answers are out there yet. When I was a young kid it was hard work to get access to any nude pictures and any sex videos were grainy with masked people etc. No one in my classes were sending nude pictures of themselves to other classmates, etc. After viewing endless sexy bodies on the internet just how sexually attractive can most people hope to be really? And what are normal sexual acts anymore? Any kind of fetish will generate thousands of hits on google and you can chat with anyone into anything. 50 years ago such imaginative choices would be non existent. Decades ago. for many young people, if they wanted sex on any kind of regular basis they had to get married. I suspect, despite the internet, most sex acts today by most people, are quite vanilla. Feel free to contradict me here with personal testimonials. 

So who gets the most sex? Married couples or singletonians? Naturally there can be no generalization here. But here is the generalization:  54% of married people have intercourse once a week or more compared to 9% of singletonians. Some singletonians counter that they would rather have less sex with more different people than more sex with the same person. The more we know about sex the more likely we are to feel it is proof God has a sense of humor. 

Despite so many people living alone some have stated we are really viewing the end of solitude. People like myself who genuinely enjoy solitude are a vanishing breed. I am never less alone than when alone in the quietude of nature or even the bustling streets of a city. I don't even have a cell phone except one for emergency---no one has the number and it is never on anyway. I don't spend time in chat rooms, have face book, tweet, etc. Ok, I do write long musings about most anything, and do travel some distance once a week to exercise and amuse Riva the horse. Retirement, good health admitted, is a great deal. I do what I want, when I want, for as long as I want, if I want. I have no expensive hobbies, no interest in fancy cars or fancy anything, am the recipient of many kindnesses from all sorts of people,and get the most pleasure from a charitable Fund I established called FANAFI (Find A Need and Fill It). I stole that name from a high school teacher who lectured our class on it all the time. It just stuck with me all these years. Cooking, reading, writing, 5 mile walks, museums, netflix, etc. are enough to amuse me. Enough is enough---enough is as good as a feast.  No one can give us contentment, it has to come from within.

The classic example of where generalities and stats fail us in how this topic of living alone affects the blk population of our country. Rights can be granted and laws passed, but past circumstances and practices do not disappear that quickly. Disproportionate to their population numbers, too many young blk spend their formative years in poor schools, difficult home environments, in areas ravaged by decades of the War on Drugs, and all the disadvantages of economic poverty.

The world viewed through the eyes of those living in such environments is a different world than viewed through more affluent environments. These young people are more likely to see the world as everyone for themselves and their demeanor more like one of 'don't mess with me'. This demeanor and dress may well succeed, but this aura of fear in others to mess with them deprives such young terrors of jobs, kindnesses from others, opportunities of all sorts, and not the least of these is attracting a suitable mate. As a consequence, black Americans who have never married and live alone are the fastest growing segment of the blk middle class. In other words, the price for many blks who achieve economic affluence is limited access to potential mates at the same level of affluence. For some, they have had enough stresses getting to their economic level so they shun situations where they might have to deal with it in someone else. Their life has improved and they are not about to risk sliding backwards. To what extent this is true, and the author did not discuss this, is debatable. I am not the one to provide any definitive answers---I am sure there are multiple factors in play here. The stats are true, but the cause and answers are a different ball game. Statistically, blk women are twice as likely as white women ti never have married by age 45 and twice as likely to be divorced, widowed, or separated. But we need be careful here in interpreting this. The percentage of our population living as singletons is rising sharply for all groups, so in this sense black women are just leading the way. Unless this whole trend represents a tragedy, which is clearly debatable---and at least not yet knowable--then one can't logically say it is good for some and not for others, or bad for some and not for others. 

Singletonians are responsible for more than 35% of total consumer spending. In 1950, only one in ten Americans over 65 lived alone, whereas today about 1 in 3 do. Until 1930 there was not a single European country in which 10 percent of the population reached the age of 65. If anyone thinks the cost of medicare and social security can be contained with such a vast increase in the percentage of  people over 65, they must be mentally retarded or incapable of simple math. No one wants to pay for it. Elections are more about putting together a coalition of groups who comprise a majority so the majority can then make the minority pay for the increased costs. I have yet to hear any Presidential candidate campaign on everyone paying their share according to the size of their piece of the pie. Obama hints at it, but to hold a majority coalition he fudges here and there. In surveys, those elderly who lived alone gave a somewhat higher satisfaction rating then those living with others. And those living alone do not suffer more mental or physical illnesses on the average. However, those who have strong social ties outside family have fewer health risks as do those elderly who have pets. Elderly women who live alone have fewer mental problems and diminished vitality than their married counterparts. Older people who use the internet experience 20% less likelihood of depression. 

Okay, that's all she wrote, or actually all Klinenberg wrote. I found most of it quite interesting and thought provoking, and if you got to this point, I figure so did you.Most kids in an affluent society get their own personal space early on, they learn at an early age to communicate with others via gadgets, they enter the job market under stressful circumstances, sharing space with someone else on any permanent basis is threatening, and increasingly they feel quite normal with living alone and postpone any sexual limitations or career limitations until later. Most singletonians, according to Klinenberg, have no intention of living alone permanently unless they are older and fear being saddled with a mate who might take tremendous personal care with a health problem. 

P.S. One aspect the author did not mention about singletonians is this. Some people live alone because they are physically unattractive, have personality disorders, have mental disorders, are closeted gays, have severe medical problems, live in isolated areas where there are limited potential partners, etc. 

If anyone questions me, the perfect answer might be 'all of the above'. The bottom line is this----none of us will ever get out of 'this' world alive. The fact of having been born does not speak well for our  immortality. We get dealt our cards at birth, we play our cards the best we can, that is the reality, and to the extent we achieve some success, and help level the playing field for those less fortunate with their  given cards, we have done our ethical duty via the Golden Rule and can enjoy  contentment with our lives.  Time stays, WE go.  

Doctor's Without Borders

Doctor's without Borders

This charity, of which most people are aware, has always interested me. The interest, in part, is related to the kind of environments in which these dedicated and humane volunteers work. Most of these 'hospitals', if I can use the word loosely, are total dives with little equipment and squalor unimaginable to someone like myself.  I can't say I have never entertained participating in some form or fashion, but just viewing pictures of victims or reading books by some of those doctor's who have served, is depressing enough. 

I suppose, in some realistic sense, much of this aid is hardly of the durable kind. I mean, these tragic medical cases---often children, do not exactly survive and return to a society whose environment gives them much hope for even the minimal of what many of us would call a tolerable existence.  When I recently received an invitation to attend a special presentation by several of those doctors who volunteer their services in some of these sad and dangerous places, I thought it would be some sort of emotionally moving and insightful vicarious experience. Plus, I was intrigued to see what kind of people actually volunteer for such dangerous assignments. In most cases the most dangerous thugs, of the worst imaginable sort, are not far away. We all know many such aid workers have been slaughtered for their efforts to help the 'wrong' side in vicious genocidal wars. 

I asked to bring a guest along, and brought a friend who has actually been part of those who sometimes go to give help after environmental catastrophes. It was a strange evening. I expected a relatively large crowd, but instead found myself in the board room of some prosperous organization located on the 43rd floor of Sears Tower (Willis Tower). It just seemed odd sitting in such a facility to hear this kind of presentation.  Maybe 30 people were there including the speakers.

For starters, I kind of expected to see Doctors who were young, brash, intense---you know, the kind of people who might climb dangerous cliffs, surf mammoth waves, rugged looking, dynamic personalities----the whole nine yards. That was hardly the case. As a group they were quite laid back, very ordinary looking, quiet, mellow, and in some cases, not much younger than I. I asked one of the older gentlemen, "When was the last time you were in such a situation?"  His response floored me: "This year". 

I guess somewhat disappointing to me was the inability of their talks to recreate, even remotely, the reality of the environments in which they found themselves. It just can't be done. It wasn't their fault, it is just that clearly one has to be there to really appreciate the depth of despair, futility, dangerousness, and frustration of such endeavors. The books I have read were actually a better medium for an appreciation of it all. For me, the eyes of the victims in these conflicts tell more than any words can convey. The eyes always haunt me. That could, after all, except for chance, genes, environment, etc. be me. Every time I see some ass hole like Trump brag about how he earned all his blessings I get the urge to see him be converted into one of these victims these doctors try so hard to help. On a smaller scale every time I hear some person wail against universal health care because their own health care is just fine---I just want them to be one of those without health care. Often times it seems those who use health care the most are the ones most against health care for all. Let's face it, we live in a world of contradictions, and all of us at times can be insensitive to the less fortunate. 

It was hard, at least for me, to ask any substantive questions, although the opportunity was there. What are you going to say? "Describe in detail the most sordid cases and circumstances you encountered over there. I want to personally feel what you felt at the time."  Or, "What percent of the people you helped will ever have a life many of us now live?. Or better yet, "Given the wealth and modern medicine available to those of us in affluence, how is it that there are more humans dying from starvation, curable diseases, violence, and pollution today than at any other time in the history of humans on our planet?". I guess priorities are everything. Dwight Eisenhower put it this way: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Enough, there is no doubt something sumptuous and just right for the palate resides in my refrigerator for me to munch on in my recliner while watching a movie. From the 11th floor in Woodridge IL all is well. Maybe a tad tired from a long walk, but you know, I just tough it out. 

Reflections on the NOV 2012 election

Reflections on the NOV 2012 election

The first reflection is that "It is the best of times, it is the worst of times, it is the age of wisdom, it is the age of foolishness, it is the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity, it is the season of Light, it is the season of Darkness, it is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair, we have everything before us, we have nothing before us, we are all going direct to Heaven, we are all going direct the other way-" (Charles Dickens)

To this I add: "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it......." (Abraham Lincoln)

Looming over all this is the reminder that every empire in human history collapsed for basically two reasons: (1) an empire so stretched out that it became too costly and too difficult to control and (2) too much wealth accumulated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many at home. 

Imposed on all this are three new wrinkles:  (1)human overpopulation. The planet's population has doubled in my lifetime. As a consequence (2) there are no longer enough natural resources to enable everyone to live a lifestyle which some of us now live. There is no form of government which can change this basic fact.  Then add (3)---for the first time in human history we now have a global economy instead of national relatively isolated economies. Thus, when any nation talks about economic issues it has lost the ability to control their own economic prosperity. The economy of most anywhere now affects the economy most everywhere. 

If we wish, we can add climate change and species extinction, but that is largely a reflection of human overpopulation and the consequent human activities which lead to climate changes and species extinction.

All the above is, to me, where all considerations of this upcoming election starts: seeing the forest for the sake of the trees.

Noteworthy right away is that neither party addresses any of the above. We can listen to any political debate and never be aware that any of the above are issues at all. No, we are inundated with issues like abortion, gay marriage, birth control, gun rights, who is to get health care and who will pay for it, who gets tax breaks, illegal immigration, which party's base get the power to inflict the cost of reducing debt on the other party's base, etc. The rejection of any notion that everyone should sacrifice based on their % ownership of our national wealth is a reflection on just how shallow our religious or ethical society is, compared to what it purports to be. Every major prophet of every major religion---Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed-----all preached ad nausea that any accumulation of wealth past basic need is to be shared with the less fortunate, not spent lavishly on oneself, one's own family or to descendants via inheritance.  All four never preached against financial success personally earned, but all four certainly made clear exactly to whom that earned wealth was to be shared. No one anywhere, of any culture or religious persuasion, ever refutes that the Golden Rule is an ethical principle.  Ethics is an inherent human trait, genetically bestowed upon our species. Most everyone knows right from wrong is most situations. Whether any of us will do right is quite another question---whenever it is inconvenient  or not self serving.  

Thus we are faced with a quandary. If the issues raised currently in this election are really the deciding issues, then neither party is about to tackle the genuine issues. Thus, this election, at most, is nothing more than choosing just how fast everything goes down hill. Just like a parent is the last to see their child as an addict, or a thief, or a swindler, or a failure of any sort---so we too, as a dominant society or empire, like others before, are the last to face the realities of our situation. What is different this time, in the timeless process of evolution, is human inability to practice responsible reproduction. The frontier is gone, there are no new continents to be discovered, there is no longer any place to run, and everyone everywhere is being squeezed by the same issues raised in the first part of this tractate. 

Most of you know that I like Obama.  He really seems a decent, intelligent person who easily fits in with most any ethnic, economic or cultural group.  Probably most people believe he wants to be fair to all the diverse groups which make up our nation. If he wins, that will be the basis upon which he wins. If he loses, people will just be voting their pocketbook---hoping that a change will improve their own economic status, albeit they haven't the vaguest idea what specific measures need be implemented to do so. Catchy slogans don't change anything. Pitting various groups against each other just makes everything worse. 

In the short term, people like myself will benefit from a Republican President.  Few benefit more than I with Republican tax breaks and loop holes. I rarely pay more than 10% tax on my earnings----simply because most of my income is not from productive work on an 8-5 job, but because I shuffle papers around and speculate. Those kind of earnings are, for some reason, privileged, and taxed at a low rate. I also worked for the state, and government  employees are the last to suffer pension losses, health care cost increases, etc. But those of us in this category are next in line. Few citizens or politicians, at this point in time, are focused on restoring good benefits and pensions, but going after those who still might have them. It never is clear to me just how prosperity returns via reduced wages, smaller or non existent pensions, increased layoffs, longer working hrs, needing to work more than one job to survive, and supporting foreign slave labor via purchasing their products at the expense of our own work force. Aside from the low income tax rates for paper shufflers like myself, tax rates for the average person are lower now than any time in modern history. However, whichever politician promises to give even more tax cuts is likelier to win. We have become like lemmings, and are caught up in a stampede to the edge of the cliff. Let's wave to each other on the way down. What drives this stampede toward the edge of a cliff, not just here at home, but globally----is GREED, OVERPOPULATION, INTOLERANCE, and TOO MANY major problems coming at us all at once. We simply don't know where to begin, plus most insist on others sacrificing instead of them.  The election is massive finger pointing---it is this or that ethnic group which is bringing us down, or the religious beliefs of certain others, or illegal immigrants, or workers, or gays, or capitalists, or the lazy unemployed, or or those with too many benefits, etc. Maybe, in truth, we have met the enemy and it is us---everybody blaming everybody else. 

It is hard for me, at 72, to see this whole election as anything more than good theatre. It is the younger generation to whom the future belongs, not those like me in their terminational years----and that is the way it ought to be. Like others, I kind of want to say I have earned any accomplishments in life, and the many blessings along the way were all personally earned. But this would be quite a stretch---I didn't choose my parents (although I tried to raise them right), my country of birth, my community of birth, the grade and high schools I went to, my physical attributes both good and bad, my neighborhood peers during my formative years, my physical health, my ability to run some distance and then more, etc. In fact, almost any of my accomplishments, none of which are going to be in any record books, depended on the support, guidance, or protection from key others. We all know the truth to this, in varying degrees, but we all, to varying degrees, want to feel we did it the old fashioned way---we earned it. It is the less fortunate who deserve their fate. Mostly this is quite a stretch. Progress in the evolutionary process, by the nature of God's laws that control this process, has almost nothing to do with any individuals earning anything. 

But it is all moot. There is no "I" in God's evolutionary process. Clearly it is a good process, an endless process, and one for which there is no logical reason to believe it will end. I personally accept the existence of God for the simple logic that where there is a gift given, there must be a gift giver. Of course all the cards in a card deck are important. There is no game if all the cards are aces. Chance, genetic diversity, and environment are the forces; we are the cards in the evolutionary process---while God's created laws of nature govern the process. We are not in control of this process at all. What we do have control over is the extent to which we can achieve personal contentment , given our own circumstances and the cards in our hands.  Of course not all circumstances lend themselves to much achievable contentment at all. There is more tragedy than success in life. 

Democracy is beginning to collapse big time. So is every other form of government.  Incumbents are being thrown out right and left across the globe. The important issues are so complex now that the average citizen is simply lacking the knowledge to vote intelligently. The campaigns go on now for literally years, the next campaign begins the day after an election.  All the myriad media gadgets, in the hands now of common people  across the globe, are effective ways to channel sophisticated propaganda at diverse populations to ensure all the right emotional buttons are pressed to get their targeted population angry. We still, for example, have blood bath campaigns about abortion, even though in reality it only takes a pill now to have a successful abortion. So whatever the law is matters little. The question is effectively moot. It would be as easy to get a pill for abortion as it is to get marijuana to get mellowed out. 

It a larger sense, and more ominous sense, power is now passing from governments of any kind to the people. Aroused mobs of citizens, with little gadgets to communicate with each other, now have the ability to create instantaneous mobs---here, there, and everywhere---and no police force can be here, there, and everywhere at the same time. Incumbents of all political stripe are now being defeated at the polls or displaced with street mobs. The 'winners' are no more capable of stopping the chaos than the rulers just displaced. Can this happen in America? Of course it can, and it can happen almost overnight----just like it has happened almost overnight in so many other places. And when this kind of chaos sets in, for whatever the reasons, history has shown that it is always the 'have-nots' who win. They win because they have nothing to lose and the have's have everything to protect.  As pointed out in the beginning of this tractate, overpopulation is the Achilles heel of the current human species. The evolutionary process has dealt with species overpopulation before (non human) and will deal with it again. There is no reason to believe all species will end up extinct, but there probably will emerge a new species or improved old species which will understand the need for responsible reproduction. 

At any rate the November election will come and go and someone will win and someone will lose and everyone will lose, even the winner. Obama can keep the lid on longer than a Republican. With Obama gone, all the varied groups at the bottom of the economic ladder will be ripe to create chaos. As John Kennedy once said, "IF A FREE SOCIETY CANNOT HELP THE MANY WHO ARE POOR, IT CANNOT SAVE THE FEW WHO ARE RICH".  I wander around a lot, it is a longstanding hobby. I wander and see, depending on where I am wandering, masses of people living lives of quiet desperation. They are walking time bombs ticking away, all with these little gadgets for personal communication. Remember, we had all the power and wealth in Vietnam and lost. We have had it in Afghanistan and are accomplishing little, we had it in Iraq and really lost there too. Gadafi had the power and wealth and lost. Mubarack in Egypt had the power and wealth and lost, etc. The ball game has changed. It is scary. Where is the establishment winning anywhere? Mother Nature may well be stepping to the plate. She always bats last and with little mercy. God's laws which govern evolution are immutable. Time flies we say. No, Time stays, WE go.  Hang on to your hats, this could be bumpy ride.