December 31, 2012 · 10:15 pm

Obama’s Syria Policy (Or Lack Thereof)

I jotted down a few of my musings on our Islamic outreach escapades.  The Bush administration certainly made many missteps in the years following September 11, 2001.   Historians in the future will expend many pages on evaluating the decision to topple Saddam. I supported it at the time based predominantly on two factors, one being an idealistic belief that has already been shown to be naive at best, delusional at worst.  I thought the Arab world, beneath the veil of Islamic practices, yearned for more freedom and democratic institutions.  So many intellectuals in West put forth this point and with our idealistic belief that the quest for freedom beats in the heart of every man, well, I wanted this to be true.   Most assuredly a certain percentage  do yearn for more freedom.  However, our experience at toppling despots and  trying to formulate a do-it-yourself democratic  installation kit  has created fragile, unstable governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which most likely won’t be able to stand on their own once we pull out.  In Afghanistan we’re in the position of propping up corrupt Hamid Karzai, who beyond the edges of Kabul enjoys almost no support.  Once we leave his government will collapse quickly.  In Iraq competing factions leave  a state in  almost complete political paralysis, while Iran leans in waiting to sever the spine of the immobilized Iraqi state.

The second factor that led me to support Saddam’s ouster were the numerous reports about Saddam’s WMD.  I believed Saddam was aggressively pursuing WMD.   Despite the Colin Powell UN speech debacle, many reports of his WMD programs  flitted across the news pages in the years following Desert Storm.  Despite the dubious assertions of the likes of UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter,  I knew Saddam had pursued a WMD program from our Desert Storm experience.  We blew-up Khamisiyah.  Our military could verify that.  Throughout the Clinton years,  the farcical cat and mouse games continued with Saddam playing the UN and several of his European enablers, to thwart the UN sanctions and antagonize US policymakers.  The sanctions, the no-fly zone and the breathtaking corruption of the UN all provide parts to the story of our decidedly difficult foreign policy in the region.    The one missing piece to the Saddam puzzle I hope will be found once the dust settles in Syria is whether Saddam really did ship large portions of his WMD  program to Syria or was this  just another one of those desert spiders that grew in size and speed with each retelling .  Time will tell.

I came across this well-written, well-argued piece in the Tracinski  Report (here) titled, “Following From The Front“, which offers some new threads to the Benghazi story, our Libya policy, the state of our military preparedness, and the Obama administration’s complete and total lack of  situational awareness of the events unfolding around them in the Mid-East, that I hadn’t seen before.   The author presents a compelling case for why involvement in Syria, as Iran’s premiere client-state, is in our national interest and his logic is sound.  The problem for me rests not on Syria, Iran, Russia  or any of the other players in the region.

My problem with taking anymore action in the Mid-East lies with President Obama and his national security team.  I don’t trust them.  I don’t trust their judgment to make decisions that  are in America’s best interest.  The endless leaks, the radical politicization of the military on gender politics, PC generals, the sharia sensitivity  push in the military and government, all these factors foster my distrust.  Former US prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has written extensively at National Review (here), PJ Media (here) and in several books  (here) on the Islamist threat to America.  This past year added a new wrinkle on Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic face -Huma Abedin,  Hillary’s always hovering Muslim Brotherhood connected aide,  (here), which was quickly powdered over by the mainstream media cosmetic fixers.  Those same reliable media fixers pulled out the heavy-duty cake foundation to plaster over the Benghazi pimple and it looks like no long-term political Proactiv follow-up treatment will be necessary.  Washington has already moved on to fiscal cliff histrionics and set their sights on new gun control.  With almost minute-by-minute updates on Madame Secretary’s blood clot today, well, alas no one will have the heart to force her to testify on Benghazi – it ain’t happenin’.  She’ll step-down amid glowing press accounts about her stupendous record as Secretary of State and  begin the fundraising efforts for her 2016 run.

American inaction allows the Iranians and Russians to exert a lot of influence in the region.  It leaves Israel very vulnerable.  It works against American interests in the world and diminishes our influence globally.  And yet, with this CINC calling the shots, I would prefer he golf more in this second term and wander out into world affairs less.  Yes, I know history drags the unwilling, but I pray the tailwinds don’t  cast us into the midst of a global conflagration that requires action.  In  this Obama circus  there’s no talented diplomatic tightrope walkers or national security acrobats, only a whole bunch of clowns.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy

December 31, 2012 · 9:35 am

Blog Note

free-vintage-new-year-cards-angel-with-envelope-and-holly

Well, I might be getting the hang of blogging  or at least it’s feeling more comfortable posting stuff.  That said, if at any time I post something, be it  phrases, sentences, thoughts, that you believe belong to some other writer, please point it out to me.  I will immediately attribute it appropriately.  Thanks for stopping by!  Happy New Year!

Leave a comment

Filed under Blog Notes

December 30, 2012 · 9:44 pm

Afghanistan: Already A Lost Cause?

The US military possesses the most advanced means to wage war in the world, but after over a decade of dangerously near-sighted strategic vision, our leaders don’t seem to be able to see the forest for the trees.   We’re spinning our wheels in a mire of overused  tropes when it comes to defining exactly what it is we are trying to do (and whether these goals are doable and more importantly whether they’ll improve our national security footing).  Even a foreign policy genius like Henry Kissenger moved from urging for a strategy in 2010 (here) to backtracking to an American  face-saving exercise in 2011 (here).   As a starting point, in the future we need a take off the rose-colored multiculturalist shades and look at the world as it is, not as we want it to be (hint: this isn’t Mr. Rogers neighborhood, not everyone responds well to the homey sweater and friendly hellos).  We need to stop trying to affix our hopes and dreams onto others, in the delusional belief our Western value system will be embraced universally.  Our  reverence for individual freedom isn’t so revered in a culture that values submission to Allah and societal conformity to rules woven into their cultural fabric for centuries .  A decade of trying to bribe and buy loyalty in Afghanistan should provide all the evidence we need that imposing democratic forms does not a democracy make.   Does anyone believe we are any further along at “winning the hearts and minds” than when we started down this haphazardly constructed nation-building road?  And really is “winning the hearts and minds” really a top-priority national security objective?    Here is an excellent work on understanding big picture strategy  (nation/state level) by Dr. Harry Yarger that I read  a while back.    He lays out how to think about strategy.   Before we even get to the forming a strategy  part, here in the real world we need to start reading real history and realize every group of people on earth has their own unique story and their story provides the framework for their world-view.  Sorry, Afghan tribesmen didn’t attend any fancy lectures on Afghanistan’s future at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Relations to learn about what’s best for them.  In November Carlo D’Este wrote an excellent perspective on the situation in Afghanistan.  Here is his article, “The Endless and Unwinnable War” that appeared in Armchair General magazine.

2 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy

December 30, 2012 · 9:45 am

Piers: CNN’s Mushy Peas Import

Unlike the British Invasion talents of the 1960s, like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, and James Bond, pontificating Piers offers us about as much as the traditional British dish mushy peas.  Mushy peas, as it’s name implies, is just that,  an unappealing pile of green glop, closely resembling baby poop.     When British food writer, Nigella Lawson, popped onto the American food scene with a show on FoodTV, I decided to leap the pond and try some traditional British dishes.  In retrospect. I admit it ranks as a food crime against good peas…… massacred  peas buried by a lot of mint.    As my family looked suspiciously at this new food adventure, my husband took one bite, grimaced and  inquired what it was.  Upon hearing the name, he said, “the name should have given you a clue.” (okay, he added a few more “descriptive” words, but I digress) .  So, let’s just agree some things are best left in Britian, like mushy peas, bad dental care, spotted dick (a British steamed suet pudding), and let’s add Piers Morgan.  Here are a few Piers links:

On the Piers Deportation Drive: (here), (here) and (here)

Piers firing over fake photos of British troops torturing Iraqis:  the BBC report (here)

Leave a comment

Filed under Gun Control

December 29, 2012 · 9:12 pm

deTocqueville on Socialism

The Online Library of Liberty (here) is a project of Liberty Fund, Inc., which was founded in 1960 by Pierre F. Goodrich, an Indiana businessman and lawyer.  This site contains a wealth of references pertaining to man’s pursuit of liberty.   I mentioned in a previous post  that I was going to read DeTocqueville for inspiration and I’ve been finding some true gems worth sharing.   The Online Library of Liberty contains a very good selection of deTocqueville’s work.   Hopefully, most people reading this blog are already familiar with deTocqueville’s most famous work, a detailed study of American culture and politics in America.  In 1931 two young Frenchmen,  Alexis DeTocqueville and Gustave  deBeaumont, embarked on a year-long trip around America to study democracy in America.  Their detailed study of America led to a perennial political science and US history teachers’  favorite work, deTocqueville’s, “Democracy In America“.

As on most topics, deTocqueville,  succinctly explained the evils of socialism.  Following is a paragraph from the Online Library of Liberty website, where the entire speech deTocqueville gave to the Constituent Assembly in February 1848 can be found.  He was speaking out against the French government’s program that was set up to alleviate unemployment in Paris – a government works program (dejavu all over again, sadly), where the government created jobs at a certain wage, for all who wanted them.  Here’s the paragraph:

“Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. [“Excellent.”] For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, [Further signs of assent.] to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom. [Lively assent.]”  (from the Online Library of Liberty- here)

What more can I say, when deTocqueville said it so much better.  I encourage you to read the entire speech, which is at the above link.  An additional excellent resource on deTocqueville is the The Alexis deTocqueville Tour, Exploring Democracy in America (here).

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

December 29, 2012 · 4:16 pm

On Self-Reliance, Feminism and General Decline in American Culture

Just wanted to post this link (here) to a Mark Steyn piece, “Adult Babies”, which ran in National Review in 2011.  I often wonder what my parents would make of some of the present-day crazies who are  turning America into a societal Bedlam where the sane, hard-working, self-reliant receive nothing but ridicule and the  most deplorable, self-indulgent , lowest common denominator behavior entitles one to limitless government subsidization.

My mom worked as a registered nurse.  She could fix just about anything, even our TV and appliances, she could do electrical wiring, and plumbing repairs.  Being a nurse when that required more measuring, she embraced metric.   And on top of that she was an expert baker and terrific all-around cook.  I remember her visiting us in Germany one time and the plug to my vacuum cleaner had pulled loose from the cord.   My husband was away (as usual in the Army) and I had four small children.   Sadly,  I am not as self-sufficient as my mother was.  She took one look at it and asked me why I hadn’t fixed it.  I told her I would just buy a new vacuum cleaner, which evoked a look of dismay on her face.  She sent me to the German store to buy a new plug and upon returning home with the plug and electrical tape, she replaced  the plug in a few minutes.  My sisters and I often chat about how self-reliant our parents were, but particularly our mom, who worked harder than anyone else I have ever met.   Before my mother, my grandmothers and great-grandmothers all worked (some outside the home, some on farms, which most assuredly is some of the hardest work on earth) and I don’t believe any of them ever felt like they were trapped in some evil male patriarchy.  Mostly, I got  the impression they were happy to be Americans, as am I.

Long before feminism turned way too many  women into selfish,demanding  shrews who mercilessly attack  masculinity and look for male slights at every turn, many women (the kind who helped build America) were standing beside their men, instead of emasculating them.  DeTocqueville, the premier chronicler of early American culture, (“Democracy In America – Volume 2“- free here or here), commented on women in early America.  He devoted several chapters to the role of women in early American society.  He noted how independent American women were, how freely they could travel, without any fear for their safety, such was the state of public morals, that a woman could go anywhere without fear of being accosted.  Juxtapose that one with our society filled with self-defense courses that get billed as “empowering” women.  My youngest daughter comes to mind.  She reveres, Gavin DeBecker’s “Gift of Fear”,which is an excellent book (here) and she is a walking encyclopedia on safety precautions.  One could only wish that such a book wasn’t necessary.  DeTocqueville  proffered this  prescient observation:

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things—their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women”    (Democracy In America, Vol 2, Book 3, Chapter XII)

One can hardly argue that he missed the mark with so many young women involved in self-destructive, demoralizing behavior, like the hook-up scene or young female teens sexting.  This trend extends to what my youngest daughter informed me is termed “prosti-tot clothes”, when I lamented how hard it was to find  decent clothing for my young granddaughters for Christmas.  I wandered from store to store, just to find some tops that didn’t look like, what I can only term, slutty.  Here we are with women fully empowered and while  we can still hear the old hags of feminism roar, “I am woman!”, young women seem  lost in a world without boundaries, moral constraints, or parental control.  And where are the boys.  Way too often playing gratuitously violent video games, listening to music with violent lyrics and all too often being drugged for hyperactivity from a very early age.    We see way too many young men trapped in adolescence playing WOW or other games unto perpetuity, in lieu of participating in the real world.   Sure, I know most people are still trying to be good parents, but they are faced by an onslaught of  pop culture forces that are hard to keep at bay.

I feel very fortunate that my kids grew-up around some of the finest men in America (the US Army), where it was safe to let my kids play outside in our post-housing neighborhoods.  I even told my daughters when they first started driving (because we live in a military town) that if they had a flat tire, to just play dumb when a guy stops to help.  It worked like a charm for over 30 years for me.  Soldiers like helping women.  In fact, most men like being needed and useful – toss a man a problem and he will try to fix it.  My daughters scoffed at my advice and in this day and age it’s best not to trust anyone.  Luckily they can change their own tires or call for roadside assistance through their insurance.

Sure, the women’s right movement wasn’t all bad, because equal pay for equal work is unarguably right and opening up many job opportunities to women improves society.  We should encourage all the talents among all citizens.  The problem comes in when we start rewarding victim-hood status, as in the Steyn column on “adult babies”.   In another era other men would have kicked this diaper-clad ninny’s butt into adulthood, but in today’s emasculated society everyone’s forced to pay for this idiot to be bottle-fed for life  from the government coffers.  Our perverse tabloid-style entertainment industry rewards the most bizarre and freakish behavior, while private organizations that used to teach redeeming values, like the Boy Scouts of America come under attack.

Truly, our society suffers from a lack of men, who are willing to be men.  And we need women, who can move past their pampered “me-first, second, always” mentality, that creeps into so many women’s victim-hood vocabularies.  Diana West, Washington Times columnist , (here) powerfully argues what society needs is more adults , – you, know, part of that almost extinct species that used to handle life’s adversities without expecting, as Steyn points out,  some special government compensation or national day of recognition for their problem.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars

December 28, 2012 · 7:45 pm

A Conflict of Cultures or a Matter of Opinion: Arab Spring in Context by Gladius Maximus

What will be the results of the Arab Spring? Will it stabilize the Arab world or simply realign the forces that already and historically oppose the West? Are we truly involved in a clash of civilizations destined to be the West versus Islam in a war to the end of the age? Has the stage of Armageddon been set?

One of the main reasons we in the West have trouble dealing with the reality of Greater Islam is that we do not present a solid front, or world-view, in our global outlook and beliefs. I truly believe that Islam as a whole is not as cohesive as we are led to believe by the mullahs and ayatollahs who make pronouncements and issue decrees in the name of Islam, either. However, it is presented to the West as a cohesive world-view simply because there is no other means of communication within Greater Islam than through these religious leaders. Thus, the world-view of Greater Islam must be seen in a comparative light with that of the West. Therefore, when we address the clash of cultures between the West and Greater Islam, we must address it from two points of view; one secular and one religious. That comparison will tell us whether we are truly involved in a conflict of cultures precipitating a world war or are simply dealing with a matter of opinion.

When Islam is addressed by the West from a secular world-view, we immediately are required to recognize the views of France, Germany and continental Europe, then Great Britain as a bridge between continental Europe and the United States, the value-system of the developing countries of Central and South America, and finally, the secular view of the United States. Thus, there are at least four separate, secular world-views that must be considered in espousing a world-view of the West. This does not take into consideration Israel, middle-Africa or any of the ethnic Asian countries. A further variance to a Western world-view is added in that in the U.S., there is no separately distinguishable world-view that is uniquely American. The nature of our culture and the maturity of our freedom of expression is such that divergent groups within the US have equal opportunity to espouse their own separate world-view, and exercise those rights emphatically. Thus, to even develop a premise that there is in fact a world-view of the secular West strains the bounds of Western imagination. We do not see ourselves as cohesive; therefore, how can Greater Islam see a cohesive world-view from the West? In their world-view, what do we stand for and how do they determine that position?

We in the West are privileged to have the freedom to develop and express our positions and opinions openly and even on a large scale, depending on the forum we elect to use for expression, such as print media, television, internet or live audiences. The forum dictates the scope of distribution of the view point being expressed, be it wide, narrow or regional. Certainly, within the West, there are more recognizable sources of distribution of a world-view than others, such as the New York Times, the German and British daily newspapers, BBC, CNN and other major news outlets. All have the ability to project a world-view, although ideally we would hope they maintain a balanced and steady flow of factual observations. They do not, and thus we are faced with a multi-faceted, secular statement of the world-view of the West. Regardless of how divergent the views stated, however, the views are all seen as a Western View by Greater Islam.

To Greater Islam, the very strengths of our freedom of expression appear to show a weakness in our society, a lack of cohesion in our people and a tendency to be self-destructive in our actions. The old saying of, “We either hang together or we will surely hang separately.”, is seen by Islam as lack of focus, lack of commitment and lack of will in presenting a unified front to their opposing culture.

Further added to this discussion of world-view is that the society of Islamic countries is totally intertwined with the religion of Islam itself. Not only is Greater Islam mono-theistic, it is mono-cultural and a mono-cultural outlook is largely unable to recognize diversity to the extent known in the West. Rightly or wrongly, as perceived by the West, Islam presents a unified front. One reason for this is that any freedom of expression within the Islamic community outside the West is immature. By immature, I mean that freedom of expression is a new thing within Greater Islam. Without a doubt, the freedom of expression of Islamic national leaders from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and other Islamic countries has existed for decades, if not centuries. However, the freedom of expression of the populace to develop their own world-view separate from that of Islam is very new. In Egypt, for instance, in the past often considered a progressive Islamic country, such freedom is very fragile and freedom of expression is still finding its way there.

As perceived by the West, particularly the conservative West, there is very little secular self-expression in Greater Islam. While the reasons may be myriad, such as lack of the internet, lack of national and international media outlets, lack of education, lack of secular dialogue, the perception remains that there is no secular Greater Islamic world-view. Coupled with that lack from Greater Islam, the West is largely unable to differentiate between Sunni and Shia views, and makes few attempts to do so.

Arguably, with no cohesive Western world-view and no truly secular world-view from Greater Islam, logically addressing this clash of the West and Islam is simply not possible. We in the West are aware that we have divergent opinions and, while we may argue vehemently, we are mature enough in our freedoms to allow divergent opinions to exist without going to war over them. Greater Islam, on the other hand, does not have a secular world-view separate from Islam as a religion and thus cannot carry on a dialogue in the same rational, though heated, manner that we in the West are used to conducting.

That brings us to whether it is even proper to view Greater Islam from a secular world-view, and, if so, what we should expect from Greater Islam in return. We cannot deny the fact that all Western culture is derived from the Judeo-Christian ethic of right and wrong. Within some latitude, every Western nation condemns murder, unbridled violence and subjugation of one class or gender of people by another. Truly we in the West don’t always get it right, but culturally, we do see the main points of right and wrong in a single light based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. Greater Islam does not.

Each side of this debate has saddled itself with a theocratic world-view that is diametrically opposed to the world-view held by the other side. The West does not understand a culture that not only condones but encourages bombings of the World Trade Center, trains in Spain, British citizens, suicide bombers and rocket attacks against Israel. The West does not understand a culture whose theocratic holy book clearly states that it is acceptable to lie, cheat and steal in dealing with an unbeliever (of their religion).

On the other hand, Greater Islam does not understand a culture that allows self-expression even when that expression is contrary to the Judeo-Christian ethic. It does not understand a world-view that provides for freedom of expression, even when the majority opinion is contrary to the views expressed.

Thus, the only logical conclusion that we can reach is that we in fact are faced with a clash of cultures and a clash of civilizations. In such a conflict, our choices are limited. From the viewpoint of Greater Islam, they can compromise the very foundations of their faith and in their own eyes abandon the teachings of their religion, or they can stand up for their faith and fight the fight that is set before them in their holy book. From the viewpoint of the West, we can allow ourselves to be attacked, killed and eventually subjugated to the teachings of Greater Islam, or we can fight the fight that is set before us.

We have no choices other than these. Compromise of bedrock moral principals is simply not possible from the world-view of either Greater Islam or the West. From the world-view of either side, we must either fight or culturally die.

Greater Islam has already made its choice. What choice will we in the West make? Support for the so-called Arab Spring is actually support for strengthening the opposition that will ultimately turn on us and attack us at every opportunity.

1 Comment

Filed under Gladius Maximus

December 28, 2012 · 8:58 am

Politicized Education

Victor Davis Hanson breaks down how universities operate (here).  In this article he dissects the anatomy of  the present day university and what he discovers is that underneath the still pristine shell, the guts have rotted out.  He lays out a pretty grim picture of the situation, which definitely explains why so many  of the college-educated wander out into the world filled to the brim with left-wing political indoctrination, but clueless on much else.

In 1910, Harvard’s president, Dr. Charles W. Eliot compiled a list of classic works of literature  that became known as “the five-foot shelf” (here)    He wanted to provide a guide whereby a persistent reader could acquire a fair understanding of the stream of  the world’s thinking from antiquity to the modern.  The goal was to provide the student with a sound  understanding of man’s progress.  All of the works on his list  are available for free, so it’s possible to build a sturdy foundation just by working through the list.  Various  publishers  sold versions of his collection and  Dr. Eliot gave speeches  promoting the idea that the average reader could acquire a sound “liberal education” by devoting just 15 minutes a day to reading  through these works.  We’d be in a better state, if today’s liberals actually did acquire a “classical liberal education”, but sadly most of  them don’t even know what  classical liberalism is and their brand of liberalism works to enslave the mind in rigid political ideology rather than open it up to differing viewpoints.  Our colleges turned into political hothouses over the past several decades, where we force into bloom exotic types of  political leftist ideology.

On another day, I’ll wade into the swamp of women’s studies and wrestle that alligator known as feminism, but for today suffice it say, allowing politics to pollute our educational system churns out more corrosive waste into society than that evil American industrial complex.  It’s eating away at the very fabric of Western civilization!

To fix the problem these slugs of academia  slither from academia to cushy government jobs,  leaving a trail of grotesque PC slime in their wake (here).  So, instead of moving back to teaching real history and great literature,  the new idea is to insist 70% of the texts used in school are “informational texts” rather than literature.  Was it Mark Steyn who quipped about  offering  extra credit to gifted students for tackling  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  and hopefully America’s hope for the future, our best and brightest,  can explain it to the rest of us?    We’re now taking short-cuts to reach the end of American greatness.  Don’t worry, the kids won’t even notice…  they’re too busy texting “2MI” and BOOMS”.   CUL….

Leave a comment

Filed under Education

December 27, 2012 · 9:17 pm

Link To Terrific Dave Grossman Article

Here is a link where you can read the Dave Grossman article, “On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs”, in its entirety.  Let’s hope more people choose to be sheepdogs!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

December 26, 2012 · 10:25 pm

Survival: The Mind-set

Reading Gladius Maximus’ excellent essay, “Gimme A Knife”, brought to the fore some thoughts on this subject of survival.  Since getting hooked on my Kindle a few years back, I frequently download obscure free books on a range of topics(mostly history, but some literature and the occasional odd title that catches my fancy), in addition to the many I buy.    To save you the inconvenience, I’ll add this off-topic comment: don’t download free public domain books from Barnes and Noble.  The formatting is awful and each one starts with a message from Google, stating each book has been carefully scanned to preserve it.  How each page ends up with many words containing symbols in lieu of letters, I know not, but save yourself the aggravation of reading this mess.  Amazon’s public domain books far surpass Barnes and Noble’s.

Now, back to the topic, a few months ago,  I read my  amazon.com freebie,  Willa Cather’s, My Antonia  (available free here or here).  This novel exemplifies the “put one’s hand to the plough” mentality that separates those who persevere and thrive and those who prefer to wallow in misery.  The young male main character, Jim Burden, narrates the story of moving to early 20th century Nebraska to live with his grandparents, who were early homesteaders.  Jim becomes fascinated with neighboring homesteaders, the Shimerdas,  a family of Bohemian immigrants.  Throughout the story, Jack’s grandmother exemplifies the indomitable American spirit and she’s a testament to planning not just to survive, but to live as comfortably as possible in an unforgiving environment.  The Shimerdas, city-dwellers in their home country, fail to take responsibility for their own survival, necessitating good neighbors to prevent their demise.  In one scene the grandmother packs a hamper to take to the Shimerdas, she offers this line:

‘Now, Jake,’ grandmother was saying, ‘if you can find that old rooster that got his comb froze, just give his neck a twist, and we’ll take him along. There’s no good reason why Mrs. Shimerda couldn’t have got hens from her neighbours last fall and had a hen-house going by now. I reckon she was confused and didn’t know where to begin. I’ve come strange to a new country myself, but I never forgot hens are a good thing to have, no matter what you don’t have.”

Despite the Shimerdas family’s hardships and suffering caused by their parents lack of survival skills, Antonia Shimerda and her siblings (thanks to neighbors and others in their rural Nebraska community), get on the path toward successfully homesteading and thriving in America.

I’ve noticed this dichotomy in how various regions of the country respond to natural disasters too.  In the heartland, entire towns were swept away by flooding, yet you saw neighbors helping neighbors and I recall one reporter interviewing a young man, who was  helping build a sandbag barricade.  This young man, nonchalantly told the reporter that his family’s home had already been washed away one town upriver, so there was nothing they could do about that.   He told the reporter they decided to come and try and help their neighbors save their homes.  Yet, when natural disasters strike urban areas, the scene quickly turns into political posturing about the federal response, looting concerns, and a general spectacle of people who don’t seem well equipped to survive.  To be clear this isn’t a racist comment, I’ve observed this in Long Island, New Orleans, LA, and other urban areas and I think the difference is in the sense of community that still flickers in rural America,  that no longer burns in urban areas.

During Hurricane Katrina, GEN Russell Honore became one of the most prominent faces of Katrina.  After Hurricane Katrina he wrote a book, aptly titled, “Survival: How A Culture Of  Preparedness Can Save You And Your Family From Disasters” (here).  I bought the book, thinking my husband might want to read it, because he worked for GEN Honore, earlier in their careers and my husband came home almost daily with stories (many very amusing).

When I read the first few pages, I decided to read the whole book.  His book offers up many excellent remedies for improving our state and federal response to disasters, but the main take away he pushes to the forefront is that you are the main  driver of you and your own family’s survival.  He describes his rural upbringing working on his father’s farm and later working for pay for a  neighboring dairy farmer , Grover Chustz.   He describes Chustz as lacking formal education, but being highly creative, innovative and most of all striving to make sure everything on his farm was done well.  Honore describes how Chustz  taught him a fundamental lesson that carried him through a highly successful military career.  Chustz pulled out a single wooden match and had Honore break it.  Next,  he pulled out two matches,  put them together and had him break them, which proved harder to do.  Then he pulled out four matches and Honore couldn’t break them.  He explained  to Honore that’s the power of a team.   I believe that’s the challenge we face in America –  rebuilding the power of the team.  With the rise of the Tea party movement, the phrase, “Take Back America” took flight, but perhaps we ought to readjust that to rebuilding the American team.

Reality TV garbage, like Doomsday Preppers and the fixation on extreme survival skills, like Bear Grylls, marginalize  the seriousness of learning practical steps to take to be prepared.  In fact, stockpiling and building a fortress probably won’t increase your odds of survival anyway. The surest way to survive lies in building that team, where individual strengths and skills can lead to  innovation, creative-brainstorming and more ideas on how to tackle our problems, even in the most dire situation.  If you are stranded by rising water, calling Washington won’t help you, but calling your neighbors, who can pool resources sure might.

In a previous post, I mentioned federalism as the key to revitalizing America, in hopes of pulling back on some of the federal encroachment on states’ rights.  And the vital building blocks to stronger states lies in rebuilding our sense of community.  This isn’t about celebrity-driven national movements or the Glenn Beck type extravaganzas.  It’s about concerned citizens within communities sharing concerns,  ideas, pooling resources and taking charge of their own survival.  Considering the fractured nature of not only American communities, but more importantly American families, this team-building effort can’t be done overnight.  In fact, it could take years, but without it, we will keep making those  3 am calls to Washington and realize, no one is at home.

7 Comments

Filed under American Character, American History, Food for Thought