Columns
When Do We Grow Up?
Our two most recent presidential candidates often provided mirrors for us to see ourselves as others see us. If you are like me the experience was not always positive.
My friends and family who supported Clinton often reacted with pity or chagrin when I questioned whether she had the character to lead. Those who supported Trump often reacted angrily if I wondered out loud if his campaign rhetoric disqualified him.
What I found most puzzling was the reaction from members of both camps if I voiced no opinion. Whether they were Clintonians or Trumpers they invariably assumed my reticence meant I was for the candidate they were against or, at least, was not for the candidate they supported. Such projection upon me of their insecurities made me wonder what they really thought about their candidate.
Were they afraid the opposition research or Fox News or CNN might have some actual validity when their candidate was exposed? Was that experience a little like an attendee at a church revival might feel when some modern day Elmer Gantry begins to cast out demons or a contemporary Cotton Mather hunts witches to burn?
Or, have Americans fallen so far under the spell of Wolf Blitzer and Sean Hannity we do not care what is true but only care that bad things be aired about those we despise? About thirty wasted seconds watching Jerry Springer should give us our answer.
Even after five hundred years of non-native influence we Americans still think of ourselves as a young country. Maybe that volksgeist is why we engage in childish diatribes instead of mature analysis. Now, I do not know if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are either, both or neither the Devil’s gifts to the national media. However, I do know that if we and our representatives continue to engage in this food fight we call debate, our plates will always be filled with garbage.
If Hillary Had Won ….
We have not, yet, had a First Gentleman. However, Hillary did win the popular vote so we almost had Bill elevated to the role Melania now plays. After seeing how the national media psychoanalyzed Melania’s refusal of Donald’s hand last Monday, my thoughts wondered to how almost President Clinton, Hillary that is, and President Clinton, Bill, would have fared as President and First Gentleman.
I remember a time or two when it was reported that Mrs. and Mr. Clinton might have had a slight difference of opinion over Bill’s behavior. I can see how such difficulties might have occasionally worked their way to light.
Unlike the omniscient media I do not know what goes on inside Melania’s mind nor Bill’s. Perhaps Melania’s public behavior around Donald does not mean anything. And if Bill were First Gentleman he might occasionally engage in displays of public behavior towards Hillary that could be misunderstood as a preference to be somewhere else.
Melania speaks five languages but rarely speaks at all in public. It is unlikely Bill would have been so shy. Bill might have offered to play his saxophone while Hillary conducted interviews with world leaders. I can almost hear his rendition of ♪When The Saints Go Marching In♪ while Hillary explained her positions to Pope Francis.
Melania wears designer gowns to such places as the female section of the Western Wall. Bill might have modeled overhauls when Hillary appeared before the coal miners. I remember when Brother Billy Carter brewed and marketed “Billy Beer”. Maybe First Gentleman Bill could have gone on the “Food Network” with Arkansas recipes for fried squirrel. Melania, of course, does not eat anything.
I am not sure why we have a First Person. We give them no pay and a large house to clean. Of course, such First Ladies as Dolly Madison, Abigail Adams and Eleanor Roosevelt played crucial roles in our country’s history. But whether Melania or the mythical Bill will have such impact is still unwritten.
What’s It All About?
When a non-English speaking person appears in an Indiana courtroom the judge can call the Indiana Supreme Court hotline and get access to a certified translator. But what can we do when the words spoken by others do not fit into one of the world’s 6,500 languages?
When one watches mothers with babies it is obvious the babies feel the unquestioned love. However, as we age meanings get fuzzier. Mothers might urge general cautions to young children then threaten unspecified mayhem to teenagers.
Grandmothers may impart gentle lessons on useful crafts while grandfathers might impress grandchildren with stories that could be true.
As to fathers, many children are left to decipher what is meant by a grunt or a pointed index finger.
In elementary school we get direct teachings on such important life lessons as where and how to line up our things and how not to bother the things of others.
In junior high school teachers help us to face the unwelcome realization we are not as cute as we thought. And in high school it slowly begins to sink in that not only are we not cute, but we might even be required to do some work. However, it is in college where we are made to understand that what we say is usually not treasured by others.
Should you have been sentenced to participate in athletics at any level, your coaches most likely considered shouted invective a proper means of communication. And if you ever went through basic training in the military you are probably still laboring under a cloud of expletive ladened non-explanations for completing completely worthless tasks.
Those of you who, as was I, were reared in some religion may have often been mystified by lessons rolled into parables or analogies. Of course, that was more comfortable than the threats of eternal damnation.
In contemporary life we may find it difficult to communicate with other groups. For example, older people may hear gibberish spoken by the young and simply write them off as spoiled. On the other hand, the young may simply write the old off as old.
When politicians speak it is often to portray their opponents as liars or corrupt while the news media makes no effort to analyze any complicated issue. To take guidance from either of these groups is to proceed without a safety net.
I am not sure what advertisers want me to buy. It used to be some normal person would sing a little ditty such as, “You deserve a break today”, and I would pull into McDonald’s. Now when I watch TV I have no clue what I am supposed to waste my money on.
Movies are no longer, “Your best entertainment”. When Dirty Harry said, “Go ahead, make my day”, I got it. However, when the hero or heroine of a movie is a machine run amok, I might as well have saved the twenty bucks it cost for a Coke and popcorn.
But now that you have struggled to almost the end of these examples of non-communication, the ultimate human foreign language must be mentioned, Female Speak. I ask you, why can’t wives simply say what they mean? What occurred in the Garden of Eden to render asunder understanding between the sexes? One example is all I have space left for.
You may have noticed it is spring. Well, so has Peg. And when spring arrives at JPeg Ranch communication between Peg and me exits as the hummingbirds and onion sets appear.
I ask you, Gentle Reader, is it a felony to lie on the couch on Saturday morning? When Peg mumbles under her breath, “The garden looks like it needs tilling”, how am I supposed to gain from that she wants me to immediately drop my coffee and attack the unoffending soil?
How about, “Jim, would you please till the garden?” I would have got that; a daylong period of icy silence would have been unnecessary.
The Mote v.s. Log Conundrum
In one of the greatest political speeches ever made Jesus told the audience on the Mount they were hypocrites who could find the minute faults in others while ignoring their own major failings (Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5).
Muslims, to whom Jesus is second only to Muhammad as a prophet, and Christians, to whom Jesus is a god, might wish to reread his teachings on human relations. Other peoples might benefit too.
Those of you who have slogged through the most recent Gavel Gamut articles might recall the major topic has been the difficulty of one nation, say North Korea or Iran, understanding the true intent of another nation, say the United States of America, and vice versa. Differing languages often cause what might start as hurt feelings to end with bloodshed.
It is hardly a novel thought that countries, just as individuals, often seek to impose upon others restrictions they refuse to abide by themselves. If we concentrate on comparing and contrasting America and Iran and/or North Korea, outside observers might conclude one country that has thousands of nuclear weapons is threatening to use them to annihilate countries who attempt to even develop one.
Such an investigator might observe that one country strains to dispose of billions of tons of wasted food while it imposes dire economic consequences on countries whose populations are starving.
When it comes to health care one country debates at length the investment in care for its most vulnerable citizens while it spends trillions to rain munitions instead of medicines down upon countries which stubbornly refuse to agree such an approach is altruistic.
If Jesus was correct in his speech (promise?) that “blessed are the peacemakers”, what might we assume the war makers will reap? They probably will not gain acceptance as “sons of god”, more likely as sons of….
Sticks and Stones
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” A catchy nursery rhyme but a dangerous belief for political leaders. Language matters. Other animals may communicate but only humans have developed language to the point we can engage in international trade and send rockets into space.
One problem we have not solved is completely understanding what someone who speaks a language different from our own truly means. While it is possible someday the whole world will once again speak one language, the last time that was true was three million years ago when all the humans on Earth lived in Africa’s Olduvai Gorge. Somehow we managed to create an actual Tower of Babel (Genesis, 11:1-9) as we clawed our way all over the globe.
Almost everyone has experienced being both misunderstood and misunderstanding others. They hear one thing when we intended something else or we thought they meant something by their words that was not what they intended. If you are married you will not need any specific examples from me. The situation is exacerbated by leaders of foreign countries trying to reach a meeting of the minds while using separate languages.
When I taught other judges from Palestine, Ukraine or Russia the system we used to convey my English language thoughts to the foreign judges was: I would speak, or write, an idea then a translator fluent in both English and Arabic, Ukrainian or Russian would repeat to the foreign judges what I just said or wrote. I could often tell from the reactions of the foreign judges that even with the best-intentioned and diligent translators what I meant often was not exactly what the translator conveyed and/or the audience understood.
If we apply this principle to international relations, say between the United States and North Korea, we and they should probably proceed with extreme caution when we make statements which might unintentionally convey disrespect or challenge.
Perhaps another old childhood saying might be worth keeping in mind as countries deal with one another where either or both could easily misinterpret the other’s true intent: “Be careful what words you spew out to others as you might be eating them later.”
Right now many in our country are using language about North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-un that might make any person fear we are going to attack them. Irrational responses often result when one is placed in fear and doubt about another’s intentions.
Many in our government and in the news media are sounding the war tocsin and claiming Kim Jong-un is dangerously irrational. As for our own leaders much of the media is so offended by President Trump’s criticism of the media that it is in a constant attack mode. For example, this past Sunday edition of The Reno Gazette-Journal devoted three pages to calling the President of the United States a liar. It would not be surprising if North Korea were emboldened to attempt military action due to a false conclusion that Americans are weak and divided.
I am not suggesting the media or anyone else ignore poor decisions or bad policies. Our democracy has lasted over two hundred years in large part because we need not fear to speak out against what we perceive to be ill-advised actions. However, the country chose President Trump. It is much like a spouse who denigrates his or her mate. Whose judgment is flawed?
And when our politicians and media continually describe Kim Jong-un as a dangerous fool he might be misled to believing we are about to launch an attack. Perhaps both countries and their leaders may wish to ratchet back the invective with both keeping in mind another ancient aphorism: “When one is dealing with a fool he should make sure the fool is not similarly engaged”.
Honey or Vinegar
A large percentage of Americans trace their roots to Germany and Italy, not so many to North Korea. The United States fought two major wars with Germany and one with Italy in the 20th Century. North Korea was our enemy once in the 20th Century. We forgave Germany and rebuilt it and our Italian WWII enemy with the Marshall Plan. It was some of the best money America ever spent.
Both post-war Germany and Italy were near starvation and needed everything from butter to sewers. The U.S. of A. provisioned both countries. As for North Korea, when active hostilities ceased over fifty years ago we maintained, and still do, a stance of belligerence and bellicosity. Our statements and actions as recently as last week invited all-out war and even more harsh economic sanctions to North Korea but not a penny for food or infrastructure. When we helped rebuild Germany and Italy we made long term allies and loyal friends out of people who had previously been engaged in killing us. The Marshall Plan was relatively inexpensive, especially since what it purchased was not only lasting peace but also economic benefits that far exceeded the cost. It was as President Trump might say, “One hell of a deal.”
I propose instead of spending billions of our treasure and many of our lives trying to force North Korea to give up attempting to create nuclear weapons, we should kill them with kindness; it would be a lot cheaper and much longer lasting.
When one whips a dog instead of feeding it, it should not be surprising if its first instinct is to bite.