Sitting in the waiting room at Tire World gives a fellow some time to think, especially if the fellow neglected to bring his reading glasses along with him. Here's what was on my mind.
Today marks the sixty-eighth anniversary of the D-Day landings in France. Most of the veterans are deceased by now, and many of the rest are infirm in one way or another. A kid of eighteen in 1944, and almost all the soldiers that day were older than eighteen, would be eighty-six by now.
Most people will pass the day without a thought for what happened back then. A few will recall what they saw on Saving Private Ryan, but that'll be about it. But if those men hadn't gone ashore that day, the world would be much different now. Hitler would still have lost to the Red Army, but the USSR might have dominated all Europe in the aftermath.
The governor of Wisconsin beat back an attempt to fire him last night, to the delight of Republicans and other right wingers around the country. The election was presented as a referendum on the governor's attempt to hamstring the public employees' unions there.
As blog readers know, I worked for the National Park Service for many years, but in only one park where I worked was there a union, and it represented only maintenance employees who cared to join. The union was not allowed to negotiate salaries, only working conditions. Most of that had to do with establishing a schedule for when the outdoor employees could come back to the yard, a sliding schedule of temperature and humidity.
The Wisconsin unions will still have some clout, negotiating teacher contracts and preventing abuses and fighting terminations, but even that might be too much for the Wisconsin voters. Wisconsin always seemed a little schizophrenic to me. The same state that elected progressives "Battling Bob" LaFollett and Russ Feingold also sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate.
In the aftermath of yesterday's election, Sarah Palin is quoted as saying that "Barack Obama's goose is cooked." I wouldn't argue the point that when a president's party loses an election anywhere that president is weakened somewhat. What burns me is the intemperate nature of the remark. It's an election year and some hyperbole is warranted, but Ms. Palin almost seems gleeful. Disapproving of a president is grounds for trying to elect someone else, it's true. That's the essence of democracy. To enjoy a president's discomfiture is the triumph of partisanship over patriotism.
Oddly enough, the same electorate that voted to keep Governor Walker said in exit polls that they prefer the president over Mr. Romney and by about the same margin. So, go figure.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama
"Click if you liked the 'stand up' foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and not the appeasement policy of Barack Obama," said a recent marginal "poll" on Facebook. One of my numerous cousins was among the clickers.
This is what is called a "push" poll, of course. It's akin to the "What if I told you your preferred candidate was a spouse beater and drug addict," kind of question. "Well, naturally I wouldn't support him then," the person being polled will answer, and the pollster then adds the respondent to people opposed to that candidate.
Note that the pollster doesn't actually make an accusation - it's all conditional, but the thought lingers in the target's mind - is my candidate a spouse beater and drug addict?
The "poll" on Facebook got me to thinking about foreign policy, however, and about American myth-making. Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Younger Americans will have very little recollection of his years in office. Since he left the presidency he has become the very apotheosis of what a Republican president should be. He is invoked by every Republican who seeks political office, from town clerk up to president.
Why? What is there in Reagan's record that excites so much admiration? Let's examine his foreign policy and that of President Obama to see who did better.
President Reagan's partisans will immediately point out the collapse of the Soviet Union as his great achievement, and I think his military buildup and intransigence about negotiating arms deals certainly did help bring on the downfall of the USSR. One could argue as persuasively that the Communist government fell because of its own internal contradictions and because inept leadership allowed the country to become embroiled in the Afghan war and support for Marxist regimes in other places, particularly in Nicaragua and Cuba. Those efforts bankrupted them and destroyed public support within the country.
The Reagan administration provided military aid to the Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua and the government of El Salvador, that was at least loosely allied with "death squads" which killed suspected rebels without proof, trial, or mercy.
It was a cynical policy and one that saw the world without nuance. Reagan even hosted Mujahadeen leaders in the White House and called them the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers" - these precursors of the Taliban.
Afghanistan, it must be said, has been a mess for thousands of years. Warring tribes, little infrastructure, and ferocious resistance to any outside influences are their hallmarks.
Not too long after Reagan left office, the government of Nicaragua, which had gained power in a bloody revolution, called an election in the expectation their party - the Sandanistas - would win easily, and then surrendered power peacefully when they lost. A peace of sorts was eventually worked out in El Salvador and a leftist revolution was thwarted - partially.
When Marxists seized power in Grenada, Reagan sent to US Army to boot out the usurpers and restore democracy. From the standpoint of power politics, the invasion also prevented the Cuban air force from building a runway there that would have been used to ferry Cuban soldiers to and from Africa.
Reagan made much of his refusal to negotiate with terrorists, but when air pirates seized a passenger airliner and began murdering Americans, he did in fact yield somewhat to them.
He sold military equipment to the radical regime in Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contras in defiance of Congress, then shrugged off the whole matter saying it was just one little airplane of material.
It's a mixed record, in my opinion. It's cold blooded, hardball international politics, but it did achieve some positive results.
And what of President Obama? He inherited a protracted involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has had to deal with international monetary problems and economic difficulties. Tyrants in Egypt, Libya and Syria were under assault by their own populations. He has ended the Iraq involvement though some American troops are still there. He has promised to wrap up the Afghanistan involvement on a schedule that will presumably give the client government there a chance to survive. (I'm very pessimistic about it though.)
Obama's foreign policy favored the Eqyptian revolution that ultimately succeeded, and American planes materially assisted the Libyan rebels who toppled Moammar Khadafy. Currently, he is calling for a new government in Syria, where the despot is killing his own citizens left right and center.
The Obama administration has made extensive use of drones to wreak havoc on the leaders of al-Qaida, killing some innocents in the process, and conducted the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. (Drones were not available to President Reagan.)
Obama is still trying to make nice with the duplicitous government of Pakistan. He has been trying very hard to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. A substantial part of the game involves Israel and their stated intention not to tolerate an Iranian bomb. Since Iran is a significant producer of oil, economic sanctions will not be sufficient to stop President Ahmadinajad, in my opinion.
Concerning North Korea, the Obamaites are trying to use a carrot and stick approach, with only modest success. One can only hope the suffering people of that land will soon throw off the tyranny there and achieve some measure of peace and freedom.
European nations have yawed back and forth in the last few years between conservatives preaching austerity and leftists who want to retain social programs in the face of large operating deficits and debts. I don't see any overarching strategy concerning Europe from the Obama administration.
As with the Reagan presidency, Mr. Obama has used American power to rid our country of those who threaten us. We can with significant justification call both policies ruthless and cynical. Both have had successes and failures. But I don't see any grounds to claim Reagan was steadfast and Obama has "appeased" anyone. The myth of Ronald Reagan is being fastened on the country despite the mixed record of his presidency.
This is what is called a "push" poll, of course. It's akin to the "What if I told you your preferred candidate was a spouse beater and drug addict," kind of question. "Well, naturally I wouldn't support him then," the person being polled will answer, and the pollster then adds the respondent to people opposed to that candidate.
Note that the pollster doesn't actually make an accusation - it's all conditional, but the thought lingers in the target's mind - is my candidate a spouse beater and drug addict?
The "poll" on Facebook got me to thinking about foreign policy, however, and about American myth-making. Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Younger Americans will have very little recollection of his years in office. Since he left the presidency he has become the very apotheosis of what a Republican president should be. He is invoked by every Republican who seeks political office, from town clerk up to president.
Why? What is there in Reagan's record that excites so much admiration? Let's examine his foreign policy and that of President Obama to see who did better.
President Reagan's partisans will immediately point out the collapse of the Soviet Union as his great achievement, and I think his military buildup and intransigence about negotiating arms deals certainly did help bring on the downfall of the USSR. One could argue as persuasively that the Communist government fell because of its own internal contradictions and because inept leadership allowed the country to become embroiled in the Afghan war and support for Marxist regimes in other places, particularly in Nicaragua and Cuba. Those efforts bankrupted them and destroyed public support within the country.
The Reagan administration provided military aid to the Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua and the government of El Salvador, that was at least loosely allied with "death squads" which killed suspected rebels without proof, trial, or mercy.
It was a cynical policy and one that saw the world without nuance. Reagan even hosted Mujahadeen leaders in the White House and called them the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers" - these precursors of the Taliban.
Afghanistan, it must be said, has been a mess for thousands of years. Warring tribes, little infrastructure, and ferocious resistance to any outside influences are their hallmarks.
Not too long after Reagan left office, the government of Nicaragua, which had gained power in a bloody revolution, called an election in the expectation their party - the Sandanistas - would win easily, and then surrendered power peacefully when they lost. A peace of sorts was eventually worked out in El Salvador and a leftist revolution was thwarted - partially.
When Marxists seized power in Grenada, Reagan sent to US Army to boot out the usurpers and restore democracy. From the standpoint of power politics, the invasion also prevented the Cuban air force from building a runway there that would have been used to ferry Cuban soldiers to and from Africa.
Reagan made much of his refusal to negotiate with terrorists, but when air pirates seized a passenger airliner and began murdering Americans, he did in fact yield somewhat to them.
He sold military equipment to the radical regime in Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contras in defiance of Congress, then shrugged off the whole matter saying it was just one little airplane of material.
It's a mixed record, in my opinion. It's cold blooded, hardball international politics, but it did achieve some positive results.
And what of President Obama? He inherited a protracted involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has had to deal with international monetary problems and economic difficulties. Tyrants in Egypt, Libya and Syria were under assault by their own populations. He has ended the Iraq involvement though some American troops are still there. He has promised to wrap up the Afghanistan involvement on a schedule that will presumably give the client government there a chance to survive. (I'm very pessimistic about it though.)
Obama's foreign policy favored the Eqyptian revolution that ultimately succeeded, and American planes materially assisted the Libyan rebels who toppled Moammar Khadafy. Currently, he is calling for a new government in Syria, where the despot is killing his own citizens left right and center.
The Obama administration has made extensive use of drones to wreak havoc on the leaders of al-Qaida, killing some innocents in the process, and conducted the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. (Drones were not available to President Reagan.)
Obama is still trying to make nice with the duplicitous government of Pakistan. He has been trying very hard to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. A substantial part of the game involves Israel and their stated intention not to tolerate an Iranian bomb. Since Iran is a significant producer of oil, economic sanctions will not be sufficient to stop President Ahmadinajad, in my opinion.
Concerning North Korea, the Obamaites are trying to use a carrot and stick approach, with only modest success. One can only hope the suffering people of that land will soon throw off the tyranny there and achieve some measure of peace and freedom.
European nations have yawed back and forth in the last few years between conservatives preaching austerity and leftists who want to retain social programs in the face of large operating deficits and debts. I don't see any overarching strategy concerning Europe from the Obama administration.
As with the Reagan presidency, Mr. Obama has used American power to rid our country of those who threaten us. We can with significant justification call both policies ruthless and cynical. Both have had successes and failures. But I don't see any grounds to claim Reagan was steadfast and Obama has "appeased" anyone. The myth of Ronald Reagan is being fastened on the country despite the mixed record of his presidency.
Monday, May 28, 2012
The Presidential Election (Five Months Away)
I've been tracking the political polls lately. (You can see them yourself at Real Clear Politics.) State by state polls exist for the presidential election, and although it's still more than five months until election day, things look pretty good for President Obama.
If today was election day, the president would win by about the same margin he had in 2008. The only state he carried that year that looks doubtful now is Indiana. Granted, some states he carried handily four years ago are "in play" now, as the pundits like to say, but most of them are outside the margin of error. Florida and North Carolina will be extremely close this November, but Pennsylvania, Ohio and the upper midwest states all are within his reach.
In fact, I really don't see a way that Mitt Romney can reach 270 electoral votes. If he carries all the states that Senator McCain won four years ago, and Florida, and Ohio, and Virginia, and North Carolina, and Indiana, he's still short of an electoral majority. Only if you take all those and add Pennsylvania, or Colorado, do you get the magic number for Mitt. Meanwhile, Arizona might be close, and Obama might pull off a victory in the Dakotas and Montana.
So if you're a Democrat, take heart, and if that heart belongs to the GOP you might start thinking about how to build a majority for 2016.
If today was election day, the president would win by about the same margin he had in 2008. The only state he carried that year that looks doubtful now is Indiana. Granted, some states he carried handily four years ago are "in play" now, as the pundits like to say, but most of them are outside the margin of error. Florida and North Carolina will be extremely close this November, but Pennsylvania, Ohio and the upper midwest states all are within his reach.
In fact, I really don't see a way that Mitt Romney can reach 270 electoral votes. If he carries all the states that Senator McCain won four years ago, and Florida, and Ohio, and Virginia, and North Carolina, and Indiana, he's still short of an electoral majority. Only if you take all those and add Pennsylvania, or Colorado, do you get the magic number for Mitt. Meanwhile, Arizona might be close, and Obama might pull off a victory in the Dakotas and Montana.
So if you're a Democrat, take heart, and if that heart belongs to the GOP you might start thinking about how to build a majority for 2016.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Okay, here's what I tried to say twice before I accidentally deleted my posts.
In colonial America, marriages were undertaken for a variety of different reasons with different emphases among the differing cultural groups here. The Virginia Anglicans considered marriage a family alliance, intended to improve family status and provide for the orderly transmission of property from the older to the younger generation.
The Puritans of Massachusetts viewed marriage as a contract between two people who were of like minds concerning religion and the idea was to raise a new generation to love and serve God. However, they were aware of the important role of sexual attraction in the relationship.
In Pennsylvania, the Quakers held that marriage was a long-lasting relationship and the only way to make it work is to be friends with your spouse. Passion was not part of the marriage equation.
Passion was the watchword for the Scotch-Irish settlers of the Appalachians, though, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Marry the person who makes your heart sing and chance the consequences.
I'm sure there must be other reasons why people get married, but this is a pretty good assortment.
Now if I can just get this darn thing to post before I lose it all.
In colonial America, marriages were undertaken for a variety of different reasons with different emphases among the differing cultural groups here. The Virginia Anglicans considered marriage a family alliance, intended to improve family status and provide for the orderly transmission of property from the older to the younger generation.
The Puritans of Massachusetts viewed marriage as a contract between two people who were of like minds concerning religion and the idea was to raise a new generation to love and serve God. However, they were aware of the important role of sexual attraction in the relationship.
In Pennsylvania, the Quakers held that marriage was a long-lasting relationship and the only way to make it work is to be friends with your spouse. Passion was not part of the marriage equation.
Passion was the watchword for the Scotch-Irish settlers of the Appalachians, though, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Marry the person who makes your heart sing and chance the consequences.
I'm sure there must be other reasons why people get married, but this is a pretty good assortment.
Now if I can just get this darn thing to post before I lose it all.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Calico Joe
I just finished reading John Grisham's latest novel, Calico Joe, the story of a baseball player and the eleven year old boy who idolized him.
The story shuttles back and forth between 1973 and the present. Back in the year of Watergate, Joe Castle from Calico Arkansas is called up by the Chicago Cubs when their regular first baseman is injured. Joe, soon tagged with the name of his hometown, immediately shatters records for rookies in the big leagues, hitting safely in his first fifteen at-bats, swatting home-runs and stealing bases almost at will, spurring the Cubs into the league lead.
The country goes wild for Calico Joe, especially Paul Tracey, living in White Plains New York with his disintegrating family. The trouble with the Traceys is Paul's father Warren, who, as it happens, is a pitcher with the New York Mets. He's frankly a mediocre pitcher, and he's a mean nasty man who alternately ignores and abuses his children and his wife, chases other women pretty openly, drinks heavily, and throws at batters' heads.
Well, you probably have guessed where this is going. Calico Joe and Warren Tracey are on a collision course, literally and figuratively. The Cubs are coming to Shea Stadium to play the Mets. The National League pennant is at stake. Warren Tracey will try to slow down Calico Joe. He does, by throwing a pitch that Joe fails to dodge, shattering the young slugger's facial bones, knocking him of the game, the season, and his career.
Nearly forty years later, Paul, now middle-aged, a husband and father, learns that his father has pancreatic cancer and his remaining lifespan can be measured in months. Completely alienated from his dad, Paul decides to see him one last time, thinking perhaps the dying old man might want to seek out Calico Joe and reconcile with him. Joe never recovered from the beaning, now works at the high school in Calico, manicuring the baseball field. Joe shambles, he speaks very slowly, and shuns contact with anyone who doesn't live in town.
Much of the book is about the relationship between father and son. Warren has hardly mellowed after so many years. He has gone through several more wives, has no interest in his children or grandchildren, spends his days playing golf at courses near his Florida home. For his part, Paul is very reluctant to let Warren into his life.
Eventually there is a reconciliation. Paul persuades Warren to travel to Calico to see Joe, who is persuaded to meet the man who deliberately destroyed his promising career and altered his life so completely.
Grisham writes gracefully and mixes real people with his fictitious characters. Willie Mays gets a brief scene in the book, and Tom Seaver gets a mention. He has the details of the 1973 baseball season right.
He resists the temptation to write a happy ending. Warren dies little appreciated or mourned. None of his old teammates are at his funeral service. Paul does put in an appearance, and Calico Joe attends with the two brothers who watch over him. They excuse the sentiment, saying they had decided to stop by on the way to a fishing vacation.
Father and son still have only a limited understanding of each other.
It's a good book, an easy read, a little implausible in its depiction of Joe's explosion onto the major league scene, but worth reading if you have some time and the inclination.
The story shuttles back and forth between 1973 and the present. Back in the year of Watergate, Joe Castle from Calico Arkansas is called up by the Chicago Cubs when their regular first baseman is injured. Joe, soon tagged with the name of his hometown, immediately shatters records for rookies in the big leagues, hitting safely in his first fifteen at-bats, swatting home-runs and stealing bases almost at will, spurring the Cubs into the league lead.
The country goes wild for Calico Joe, especially Paul Tracey, living in White Plains New York with his disintegrating family. The trouble with the Traceys is Paul's father Warren, who, as it happens, is a pitcher with the New York Mets. He's frankly a mediocre pitcher, and he's a mean nasty man who alternately ignores and abuses his children and his wife, chases other women pretty openly, drinks heavily, and throws at batters' heads.
Well, you probably have guessed where this is going. Calico Joe and Warren Tracey are on a collision course, literally and figuratively. The Cubs are coming to Shea Stadium to play the Mets. The National League pennant is at stake. Warren Tracey will try to slow down Calico Joe. He does, by throwing a pitch that Joe fails to dodge, shattering the young slugger's facial bones, knocking him of the game, the season, and his career.
Nearly forty years later, Paul, now middle-aged, a husband and father, learns that his father has pancreatic cancer and his remaining lifespan can be measured in months. Completely alienated from his dad, Paul decides to see him one last time, thinking perhaps the dying old man might want to seek out Calico Joe and reconcile with him. Joe never recovered from the beaning, now works at the high school in Calico, manicuring the baseball field. Joe shambles, he speaks very slowly, and shuns contact with anyone who doesn't live in town.
Much of the book is about the relationship between father and son. Warren has hardly mellowed after so many years. He has gone through several more wives, has no interest in his children or grandchildren, spends his days playing golf at courses near his Florida home. For his part, Paul is very reluctant to let Warren into his life.
Eventually there is a reconciliation. Paul persuades Warren to travel to Calico to see Joe, who is persuaded to meet the man who deliberately destroyed his promising career and altered his life so completely.
Grisham writes gracefully and mixes real people with his fictitious characters. Willie Mays gets a brief scene in the book, and Tom Seaver gets a mention. He has the details of the 1973 baseball season right.
He resists the temptation to write a happy ending. Warren dies little appreciated or mourned. None of his old teammates are at his funeral service. Paul does put in an appearance, and Calico Joe attends with the two brothers who watch over him. They excuse the sentiment, saying they had decided to stop by on the way to a fishing vacation.
Father and son still have only a limited understanding of each other.
It's a good book, an easy read, a little implausible in its depiction of Joe's explosion onto the major league scene, but worth reading if you have some time and the inclination.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Gay Marriage
In the wake of yesterday's vote in North Carolina concerning gay marriage, I think it's time to discuss both marriage and homosexuality. Proponents of the state constitutional amendment claim they're not anti-gay, just pro-marriage, and I think we should accept that statement at face value.
So, what is marriage, and what constitutes a valid marriage? When I was a small boy in parochial school I recall Sister John Terrence telling us that only a wedding performed by a Catholic priest was truly valid. As an eight year old, I wasn't experienced enough to question what she said (And I liked Sister very much.), but as I grew up I began to wonder if she was right, and finally rejected her argument completely. Now I know such a position is hopelessly chauvinistic. I'll bet Sister John does too, if she's still living.
Still, it seems to me that a wedding, and the marriage that follows it, is a religious rite. My opinion is that if a couple can find a minister who will marry them, they are married, and it doesn't matter what credentials the minister has, even if the answer really is that the minister has no credentials. Besides, all the theology I know says the couple marry each other and the reverend/priest/rabbi merely officiates at the wedding.
The whole controversy over gay marriage has come about because we have co-mingled the religious ceremony of marriage with the civil process of living together. I think the problem could be solved in large part by separating the two concepts. People get married by a religious figure. They sign papers to live together, share and inherit property, file joint tax returns, and do other things that committed couples do, according to the laws of the state they live in. Call those papers what you will as long as they're not called a marriage license. Since gay people are entitled to equal protection under the law, I cannot think of any reason why a state could deny a same-sex couple such a license. I might be a kind of libertarian about this, but I can't see what business it is of a state to approve or disapprove of what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Now about homosexuality. If there's a god, and if god loves us, I cannot see how he could create people and then tell them their deepest yearnings cannot be fulfilled in any sanctified way. It seems like such a god is playing a kind of sick joke on people, and a loving god would not do such a thing. Some objectors might counter that the deepest yearnings of some people are clearly not meant to be fulfilled in any decent society - pedophilia, bestiality, sadism and so forth - but it's not the same thing. We're only talking about consensual sexual relations between adults here.
Where does anyone get the prerogative to judge the righteousness or validity of what other grownup people do voluntarily in private? Let's just be kind and accepting of each other. It will work out much better for all of us.
So, what is marriage, and what constitutes a valid marriage? When I was a small boy in parochial school I recall Sister John Terrence telling us that only a wedding performed by a Catholic priest was truly valid. As an eight year old, I wasn't experienced enough to question what she said (And I liked Sister very much.), but as I grew up I began to wonder if she was right, and finally rejected her argument completely. Now I know such a position is hopelessly chauvinistic. I'll bet Sister John does too, if she's still living.
Still, it seems to me that a wedding, and the marriage that follows it, is a religious rite. My opinion is that if a couple can find a minister who will marry them, they are married, and it doesn't matter what credentials the minister has, even if the answer really is that the minister has no credentials. Besides, all the theology I know says the couple marry each other and the reverend/priest/rabbi merely officiates at the wedding.
The whole controversy over gay marriage has come about because we have co-mingled the religious ceremony of marriage with the civil process of living together. I think the problem could be solved in large part by separating the two concepts. People get married by a religious figure. They sign papers to live together, share and inherit property, file joint tax returns, and do other things that committed couples do, according to the laws of the state they live in. Call those papers what you will as long as they're not called a marriage license. Since gay people are entitled to equal protection under the law, I cannot think of any reason why a state could deny a same-sex couple such a license. I might be a kind of libertarian about this, but I can't see what business it is of a state to approve or disapprove of what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Now about homosexuality. If there's a god, and if god loves us, I cannot see how he could create people and then tell them their deepest yearnings cannot be fulfilled in any sanctified way. It seems like such a god is playing a kind of sick joke on people, and a loving god would not do such a thing. Some objectors might counter that the deepest yearnings of some people are clearly not meant to be fulfilled in any decent society - pedophilia, bestiality, sadism and so forth - but it's not the same thing. We're only talking about consensual sexual relations between adults here.
Where does anyone get the prerogative to judge the righteousness or validity of what other grownup people do voluntarily in private? Let's just be kind and accepting of each other. It will work out much better for all of us.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Home Again
Kris and I, along with my sister Jeanne and her husband Dave, returned to Colorado Springs last night, covering the 830 miles from Anaconda Montana in one marathon day of driving. We found Kris' cats all safe and sound (we had a cat sitter), although they had managed to vomit quite a bit while we were gone, and in very inopportune places - like on my bedsheet.
Our trip was wonderful and the best of it was near the last, as we did finally get around to seeing part of Yellowstone National Park. What an Eden! We saw a black bear - somehow or other I had never actually seen a wild bear - more bison than I can easily count, ditto for elk, pronghorns and mule deer, and at the end of the day the Norris Geyser Basin. Just marvelous. My only trouble is that I can't seem to find the program that would allow me to upload our many pictures to the computer. A small complaint, I know.
Our sixteen year old Honda performed very well over the 2000 or so miles we added to the already more than 200,000 miles it has traveled. Saying that they make good cars might seem redundant in light of this, but as a mechanic told me once, the only way to get a Honda off the road is to wreck it.
Jeanne and Dave left for Virginia this afternoon. I drove them to the ariport and accompanied them as far as the security gate, where we said good-bye. As I stood there, waiting for them to enter the screening area, my attention was diverted to a family group standing near me. A man and four children were there, all four kids crying and the man trying very hard to hold back his own tears.
It didn't take long for me to realize what was going on. We see things like this more often in Colorado Springs than most Americans do, what with Fort Carson located at the edge of town. Sure enough, the man soon waved to a woman who had cleared the screening process and was hefting a camouflage pack onto her back. Deploying.
I wanted to say something, to express our gratitude to military families, but didn't want to intrude on an intensely emotional and private moment. So I smiled at them, and watched as they walked away. It will be a difficult time for all of them, the mom on deployment, the dad who will have to be a single parent for awhile, and the kids who miss their mother. Our military families, and our soldiers abroad. Mr. President, bring them home safe and soon.
Our trip was wonderful and the best of it was near the last, as we did finally get around to seeing part of Yellowstone National Park. What an Eden! We saw a black bear - somehow or other I had never actually seen a wild bear - more bison than I can easily count, ditto for elk, pronghorns and mule deer, and at the end of the day the Norris Geyser Basin. Just marvelous. My only trouble is that I can't seem to find the program that would allow me to upload our many pictures to the computer. A small complaint, I know.
Our sixteen year old Honda performed very well over the 2000 or so miles we added to the already more than 200,000 miles it has traveled. Saying that they make good cars might seem redundant in light of this, but as a mechanic told me once, the only way to get a Honda off the road is to wreck it.
Jeanne and Dave left for Virginia this afternoon. I drove them to the ariport and accompanied them as far as the security gate, where we said good-bye. As I stood there, waiting for them to enter the screening area, my attention was diverted to a family group standing near me. A man and four children were there, all four kids crying and the man trying very hard to hold back his own tears.
It didn't take long for me to realize what was going on. We see things like this more often in Colorado Springs than most Americans do, what with Fort Carson located at the edge of town. Sure enough, the man soon waved to a woman who had cleared the screening process and was hefting a camouflage pack onto her back. Deploying.
I wanted to say something, to express our gratitude to military families, but didn't want to intrude on an intensely emotional and private moment. So I smiled at them, and watched as they walked away. It will be a difficult time for all of them, the mom on deployment, the dad who will have to be a single parent for awhile, and the kids who miss their mother. Our military families, and our soldiers abroad. Mr. President, bring them home safe and soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)