Now It Is Future To The Back, Not Back To The Future.

I have had the following quote printed out and stuck on my old wooden filing cabinet for so long, it is yellowed and crinkles when I take it off to copy it in my blog to make a point.  It is from Paradise Lost, II, John Milton.

                              On the other side up rose

Belial, in act more graceful and humane;

A fairer person lost not Heaven; he seemed

For dignity composed and high exploit:

But all was false and hollow, though his tongue

Dropped manna, and could make the worse appear

The better reason, to perplex and dash

Maturest counsels:  for his thoughts were low:

To vice industrious, but to nobler deeds

Timorous and slothful: yet he pleased the ear,

And with persuasive accent thus began:… 

In my mind I’m thinking, “…up rose Belial,…” every time I hear a right-wing radical start talking about the “job creators”, and how we must cut their taxes, or how they are tired of hearing about raising the minimum wage – that what people need are not higher wages but opportunities to get ahead, while at the same time educational programs are cut, student loan interest rates are burdensome to the new graduates, and food supplement programs are cut back, and head of household jobs are scarce. 

After WWII, taxes were progressive.  The more you made, the more you paid.  It was apparent to almost everyone that not only did we have to pay for that war, but that we needed to make sure that the returning veterans had every opportunity for an education or job training.  That their medical needs were taken care of through a then pretty functional Veterans Administration.  Veterans were given priority in hiring, with very few if any complaints.  After all, they had saved us, literally, from a fate worse than death.  They were never displayed for political, commercial or religious purposes. 

An education was readily available for anyone who wanted one.  If a student didn’t have family to chip in, it was possible to work and be able to pay for tuition, books, and living expenses.  One didn’t live high end, but had the hope of doing so with that degree.  All of this was paid for with taxes, and because we all knew that when it came our turn to pay the taxes, we would be willing to do so for the next generation, and to pay back what we had used.  There was a sense of we’re all in this together.   

Some of the downfall of that era can be attributed to the overreach of Lyndon B. Johnson, who tried to fight a war overseas (Vietnam), and a war on poverty, as he called it, here at home.  He was completely optimistic about the resources of the country.  We simply could not sustain such economic drains on the national economy.  Jimmy Carter reaped the seeds that Johnson had sown, and thus the groundwork was laid for Ronald Reagan and his “Morning In America”.  Because of the lingering sense that we were “all in this together”, it didn’t occur to the majority of people that Reagan was only talking to those who could profit off of his, “We have to get government off the back of business”.  At the time I remember thinking of my very small childhood years when the mantra was getting business off the back of the American people, and were we going into that cycle again. 

Well, we have.  And because of the smooth-talking, smooth acting of politicians like Reagan, the Bushes, and now Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, Scott Walker, Rick Scot, John Kasich, Chris Christie, et al, it all seems so very reasonable.

               “On the other side up rose Belial…”

 

 

 

 

Truthiness Just Won't Go Away

“If you believe it, it’s not a lie”, or a variation on that theme, seems to be the foundation the Republicans are functioning from these days.  As a result, they can say anything they want to, anytime, anywhere for any reason whatsoever.  What a freeing feeling that must be!  Never having to look up and verify the source of your statements.  Just think of all the time one can save by not having to verify.

“I wrote a blog about this sort of thing in October of last year, True Facts vs. Truthiness, because it was already beginning to be such a problem that Stephen Colbert created the term, truthiness, to cover it.  Truthiness as a word is pretty funny, one has to admit, but the cause for the need for such a term is not.”  6/29/12  Shirley You Jest.

When I wrote this back in 2012, I wrote it about Republicans on the Federal level, but the use of “truthiness” has dribbled down to the local level as well.  For those not familiar where this local level is, it is San Luis Obispo County, located on the coast in Central California.  We have a candidate for County Supervisor asserting that she will not vote to do away with Proposition 13 as her opponent has done.  Well, Prop 13, as it is called, happens to be law voted in by the people of California to limit property taxes, and it was voted in 1978. About the only way it can be voted out is if the people of the state have another initiative to overturn it.  Further, since her opponent could not vote to overturn Prop 13, this is an out and out lie. 

In California our government system is tiered.  In our county, at the very bottom are Advisory Councils.  These councils have no government authority, but are the listening posts for county supervisors to hear what constituents have to say during meetings about issues that are of interest to local citizens.  Above that are Special Districts.  These districts have specific duties related to why they were formed in the first place.  Cemetery Districts obviously deal with cemeteries; School District deal with schools; and Services Districts deal with providing their constituents with water supplies and systems, waste water treatment systems, lighting, fire suppression, and perhaps ambulance service in remote areas.  The next level up is cities, then counties, then the State. 

Right now our local services district is having a really hot election.  Since I don’t live in the district, my concern is sort of academic except for the fact I have good friends who do.  As anyone who reads a newspaper or watches TV knows, California is in a real drought situation, with the bull’s eye for this drought the central coast.  The topography of our region consists of several creeks that provide water either to ranches or, in two cases, communities as well.  This year, however, the watersheds that feed into the aquifers that supply the water are extremely dry.  How dry is that?  Usually CalFire (our California Fire Department) requires that there be two inches of rain in the autumn before they call and end to the fire season.  This year they are requiring 3-5 inches. 

As a result of the drought, and some particularly bad decisions made by past Boards, the community that gets its water from the creek we live by that drains into the aquifer that supplies the larger community, is just about out of water.  The creek is virtually dry, with an occasional puddle of pretty yucky water.  The Emergency Water Project, both brackish reclamation and ultimately desal, will be very expensive for the community, but it is either that or take a 50% to 50% chance it will rain enough this winter to recharge the watershed.  And with climate change, one doesn’t really know what the future will bring.  The people who oppose these projects are opposing for some really shaky and, at times, bizarre reasons.  One person wants to build a reservoir to supply the community with water.  He does not discuss what he will fill it with if it doesn’t rain.  Another is afraid that the method used to dispose of the treated water effluent will contaminate everything in its way.  He does not discuss the fact that the location has already been contaminated by years of secondary effluent disposal.  Another maintains that the District only wants to have the desal so it can issue more building permits.  Ignore the fact the District cannot, by law, issue building permits.  And on and on. 

I first wrote several years ago, “Does anyone else out there feel like he/she has fallen down a rabbit hole?  Only instead of the Red Queen threatening to cut off everyone’s head, we have a bunch of whackadoodles saying anything they want, because if they think it, it must be true.”

 

 

American Exceptionalism?

Whenever I hear the phrase, American exceptionalism, I cringe.  Why?  Because those who use it, including our President, may not know the origin of from whence it came.  I majored in English while in college, and we had to study American Literature along with English Literature.  Those old Puritan sermons were very long and, to my mind, very boring.  I couldn’t imagine sitting and listening to them, although I guess if one thought one’s everlasting happy life depended on being attentive this would tend to focus the mind.  Otherwise, one might not have an everlasting happy life!  In order to write this blog, however, I had to google some history since my text books are packed away for a while, which is a long story and one I won’t get into here. 

The first quote here is from www.classic Lit about.com.  “Coming to this paradise of horrors, the settlers wanted to create for themselves a heaven on earth, a community in which they could worship and live as they sought fit - without interference. The "Bible" was cited as the authority for law and everyday practices. Anyone who disagreed with Biblical doctrine, or presented different ideas, was banned from the Colonies…or worse.”  As time went by, and the New England colonies became more settled by predominately English settlers, the preachers of the churches became a bit more educated.  The more southern colonies retained more of the European religious traditions, with Virginia being more Church of England, and Maryland (originally named ‘Mary’s Land’, for the Virgin Mary) was where Catholics were allowed to live.  They were encouraged, or downright required, to live there in order to keep their “pestilent” views out of the general population.

Later John Winthrop and other Puritans cited the New World as a city on a hill to be a beacon to Europe, a New Jerusalem, as it were.  From www3.gettysburg.edu:  “Morally, the Puritans believed that their role in society was to be a chosen people called to create a New Jerusalem.  This was a much different view than most of the other religions held at the time.  As Calvinism has predestination as well, and some aspects of the Puritan belief system were decidedly based on other religions at the time, this was what set the Puritans apart from everyone else.  They truly believed that they were a group apart from the rest of organized religion.” 

As time went by, this virulent strain of Puritanism was diluted by more and more immigrants from other countries than England – Lutherans from Scandinavia, more Catholics from Eastern and Southern Europe, and people who adhered to the principles of the so-called Enlightenment.  There were large pockets, who maybe no longer believed strictly in predestination, but definitely believed that because they were “Bible-based”, they were still a group set apart, chosen by God, and were exceptional. 

In the early 1980’s, Bill Moyers had a segment on his excellent TV show regarding the resurgence of the radical religious right, which is what we seem to call Puritans now.  In this segment he interviewed a Rousas John Rushdoony, considered to be the founder of what is now called Christian Dominionism.  In the Moyers interview, Rushdoony was discussing the fact that the United States will soon be a Christian nation.  Moyers calmly asked Rushdoony the obvious question, “What if people do not want to be Christian?”  I will never forget Rushdoony’s response, “Oh, but when we get through, they will want to be”.  Through with what?! 

This was about the time that Ronald Reagan was elected President.  Reagan popularized trickle-down economics, the rise of corporate control, inherent racism with his “welfare queen” diatribes, and his insistence that we had to close our southern border before the “brown hordes” from Mexico and Central America flooded our country.  All of this along with renaming the United States the “Shining City on a Hill”.  While this seemed sort of silly to most people, it had a remaining and long suffering meaning to the religious right who believe that they alone are destined by God to govern this country, based on their own interpretation of the Bible, and here was the President of the United States preaching it!  Does any of this sound familiar? 

I know that most people who use the term American exceptionalism haven’t a clue what it refers to.  Most think it refers to our system of government with its checks and balances, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the fact that so many people from divergent cultural backgrounds can live together in peace, and our remarkable standard of living.  And these are remarkable.  But they are no more remarkable than other democratic countries – Canada, England, Australia, South Africa, Germany, etc.  These all have our problems and our freedoms.  

Take the lines from up above, “The "Bible" was cited as the authority for law and everyday practices. Anyone who disagreed with Biblical doctrine, or presented different ideas, was banned from the Colonies…or worse.”  We still have this same attitude alive and well with the radical religious right, and their constant complaining that they are persecuted and are losing their religious freedom.  And on what do they base this?  The fact that they must acknowledge and accept that we live in a pluralistic society, and that all of our belief systems must comply with that.  Their only solution to complicated issues is to pass a law based only on their religious criteria.  No other ideas allowed here.  If you don’t comply with their beliefs, you are banned!  Or in the present, criminalized. 

What I would like to have banned is the term, American Exceptionalism!!

 

 

 

The Condor Trail

To those who follow this blog, sorry it is late this week.  Life, again, got in the way.  All good things, but time consuming.  Especially last night.  We watched the San Francisco Giants play some team in red with a W on their caps.  You would think, of course, I would notice their name, but not so.  Anyway, it ended up being a continuous double header with no break in between!  18 full innings.  The longest lasting post-season game in the history of baseball.  It would have been OK if I were that crazy about sports, but when one has so much time invested in a game, it seemed sort of wasteful to stop watching.  But, the Giants finally won – 2-1.  Thank St. Francis!  After all, the team is named after him – San Francisco.

The real reason for this blog, however, is the fact that in reading the Letters-to-the-Editor in our local county paper someone mentioned the Central Coast Heritage Protection Act.  When I googled it, most of the Act seemed pretty innocuous, but one item really raised the proverbial red flag for me.  The push for what is called The Condor Trail has started again.  This trail basically is supposed to start in the south somewhere around Ventura County and travel 400 miles north to the southern Monterey county line.  It will traverse the ridgeline of the Santa Lucia Coastal mountain range. 

I’m not sure about who owns what property in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, but starting in mid to southern San Luis Obispo County, and ending at the border of southern Monterey County it traverses private cattle ranches.  So what difference does that make?  Simply that having a trail traverse cattle ranches is probably one of the most insane ideas anyone has come up with.  Most of these properties are pretty extensive, simply because to keep them economically viable requires approximately 7-10 acres for every cow/calf unit.  There is no way to keep track of people hiking on these trails, and no way to insure that they stay on the trail.  Knowing the egocentric tendencies of a portion of the general public, merely telling them to stay on the trail won’t do it.  If they see any flora or fauna that intrigues them, off they go to get a better look.  And, on the way, if they have an accident, who is liable?  The persons themselves or the landowner on whose property they were trespassing?  Further, if the person is alone and unable to walk, cell phone coverage is not available (as it is not in many locations), or the person forgot to charge it before they left, the consequences can be tragic.

Considering the fact that hiking trails through ranch lands is almost universally a really offensive idea to the vast majority of owners, has the cost of fighting for this trail entered into the plan?  Maybe the thought is that when the ranch is sold, it will be required that the new owner agree to the trail.  So, we would either have a hodge-podge of non-contiguous trails strung across the ridge, with no public access available to access them, or buyers who back out when they find out about the requirement.  Having a “paper trail”, which shows up as a dotted line on a map is also not a good idea.  There is a “paper road” linking our rural road over the mountain to a road on the other side.  It appears on the map as a dotted line.  It is truly amazing the number of people who travel up our road looking for that paper road, and who we direct back to the highway.

The environmental organizations that come up with these notions about hiking trails on ranch lands really ought to talk to the people who own the lands first to determine if these trails are acceptable to the land owner.  That is the mature way of dealing with a “bright idea”.  Charging ahead without ever notifying the ranch owners of the intent of putting a trail on their properties is pretty egocentric to start with.

There are so many legal and financial reasons that hiking trails are not a good idea, sometimes we forget about the very real emotional reasons why it isn’t a good idea.  It is sort of like you, who live in town, spending a lot of love, time and money fixing up your back yard to host family parties.  A neighbor down the street hears about how lovely your yard is, and invites strangers to have a picnic in your yard without your permission or knowledge.  How would you feel?  Exactly!!