On Running From Reality

It seems to be almost universally true that people who cannot comfortably deal with reality run from it, and often at a gallop. This is nothing new; mankind has been doing so likely since the beginning of time. And the methods used to do so now are really nothing new either. ...at least not if we look below the surface.

Young children often have an aversion to reality. Their ways of running from it are often amusing: the pretend friend, the one that takes their side when things are difficult, and the pretend enemy, the one who takes the blame for their errors and misdeeds.

Parents traditionally have strived to help their children cope with reality through instruction, emotional support, and abundant love. But today it is increasingly common for parents instead to protect their children from reality as to teach them to effectively deal with it. And such parents typically have come to expect, and receive, support in these efforts from society's institutions -- especially the public schools.

Adult's methods of running from reality are less pretty, and less amusing, than those used by children. Some, indeed, are terribly self-destructive.

What is commonly today called "chemical dependency" is one such method. This is nothing new -- entire societies have been built around the bottle. Pubs and taverns have long been the places where working-class men, especially, have fled to avoid the realities of their lives. The so-called "upper classes,' while looking down on such common places, have done likewise -- just with finer sounding names, be they the "five-martini lunch," the after-office "happy hour" or evenings spend in finery at a "nightclub."

Today chemicals other than alcohol are often used to aid in the run from reality, be they the prescribed "mother's little helper" made famous in a sixties-era Rolling Stones song, or non-prescribed drugs such as cannabis and cocaine. What is new is Western society's coming to see this as "normal" and acceptable adult behavior.

There are other means of running from reality that can be equally destructive -- to the individual and society as a whole. One of these is the misuse of what should be a positive aid in dealing with reality -- religion. To look to God for support in facing up to and dealing with life's challenges lies at the heart of Christian and Jewish religious belief. But even those faiths, today, have, in the eyes of some believers, become mere excuses for not facing unpleasant realities. And other religions, by encouraging total acceptance and acquiescence to whatever is perceived as "God's will" ("Insha'Allah"), have kept entire peoples from finding productive ways of improving their situation in life.

Today's Western societies are increasingly secular. That may prevent them from looking to God for the strength they need to face realities -- be they personal or societal. But it does not, and has not, prevented them from falling into the "Insha'Allah" trap of total acceptance to the equivalent of "God's will" -- of complete acquiescence and abdication of personal responsibility when facing the realities of life. Their need to "run" has simply forced them to find new gods for themselves. These are often in found in the form of political leaders, celebrities, and the "I'm alright, you're alright" school of self-help teachers and writers.

Does any of this matter? Yes, a great deal. Said Patrick Henry "No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." All of these things -- adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue -- require men and women -- an entire citizenry -- who are willing to face reality, to wrestle with it, to deal with it. Men and women who are willing and able to take responsibility for their own lives.

Progressivism encourages the very opposite of this. It makes -- indeed requires -- adults to remain or again become dependent children. To look to the State for even their most basic needs. To that end it invents for them imaginary friends -- political leaders who supposedly have their interests at heart. And even more so to invent for them imaginary enemies -- basically anyone who encourages personal responsibility -- be it on a personal level (such as parents who wish to teach their children at home), on a local community level (such as church groups that do not share and support any and all of the popularly accepted values, prejudices, and irresponsibilities) and especially on the State and Federal level (such as the accursed "Tea Party").

It is so-called "Progressives" who encourage us to distrust our own values and experiences -- especially those passed down to us by American and Judeo-Christian traditions. Instead they encourage us to look to "experts" to tell us how to act, how to think, and yes, even how to feel.

The many ways that this is threatening American society -- indeed the nation itself -- are almost uncountable. And the momentum towards such destruction is, if anything, increasing.

As personal responsibility fades more and more people start to look to the state instead of themselves for even their most basic needs. Thus anything that diminishes people's ability to face and effectively deal with realities on their own is being encouraged. And thus the push for the legalization of such things as pot -- for few things are as effective at making a person ineffective, irresponsible, and childish as regular cannabis use.

Too, we see the family structure -- once the great bulwark of protection for society's traditions, and the place where children were taught to face reality as free, independent, adults -- under attack. To support "marriage" as it has been customarily understood for all the Christian era is to be a "hater." For a boy to see himself as just that -- a boy -- and likewise for a girl -- even this is seen as a threat to those with a Progressive vision and agenda. Thus the emphasis on the so-called "transgendered." Thus the elimination of even Boys rooms just for boys and Girls rooms just for girls even on the grade school level. People who know and acknowledge who and what they are, are people who can face reality. They are thus seen as a threat to the Progressive vision -- to state dependency.

And thus not only the breakdown of traditional societal values, but the elevation of what was once called base, criminal, and sinful is seen as the new "good."

In Frank Capra's beloved 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life the central character, George Bailey, comes to see himself as someone crushed by reality. All through his life he has faced issues outside his control with strength and unselfish devotion to others. He finds himself -- as most every human will at one time or another -- discouraged and without the confidence to go on. If there was a devil in this film it would have been he who encouraged George Bailey to give up -- to throw himself into the river in despair. But instead an angel comes to his aid and reminds him how his willingness to face sometimes unpleasant realities, and to strive with all his great heart to overcome them for the sake of others, has given him a life of until then unappreciated goodness.

It tells us how much our nation has already been corrupted by the agenda of the Progressives when we look at the world George Bailey sees in the movie, first with, and then without, his existence. With it, by means of his personal efforts, responsibility, and sacrifice, there is a world of goodness and heart. Without those sacrifices -- a world without the George Bailey the town of Bedford Falls has come to know and love -- there is instead a "Pottersville." A town filled with hatefulness, selfishness, hopelessness, and vice.

Back in the 1940s America understood which the better vision for a town was, and what it took to create such a place: people willing to face difficult realities. People willing to and able to demonstrate personal responsibility. People willing to make sacrifices based on the Judeo-Christian value of unselfish love.
But today? What sort of "town" are the so-called "Progressives" striving for? Towns filled with healthy, happy, hard-working people living lives of faith and purpose? No -- what Progressives want -- what they are building in place after place -- are villages of vice. Places with casinos, porn parlors, pot shops, and needle exchange programs; towns where young girls laugh at chastity and men scorn such things as family responsibility.

Yes, the tendency to run from reality is real. The temptations to do so can be found everywhere. Entire societies have been built on the premise that escapes into the equivalent of youthful fantasies is better than the taking on of adult responsibility. But such is not what built America. And such childishness will not preserve what traditional Americans have come to value.

Only strength -- full adulthood -- will. It is for that we must strive.

On Running From Reality was originally written for and posted on American Thinker. It is used here with permission.

Two Times. Two Places. Two Worlds.

Going through my normal morning routine I have come to realize how much my vacation was a change of time as well as a change of place -- that Jan and I live a life that is in some ways closer to the 19th century than the 21st.

When we were away we enjoyed much of the best of the 21st. (And yes, we did enjoy it!) A world where (when?) what was once called "creature comforts" -- from such things as the keeping of perfect room temperature and humidity to inter-room communication -- are all controlled with one's finger tips or (as often) totally automated. A world were even the fireplaces are turned on by remote control producing, within seconds, the warmth of blazing logs sitting on a bed of glowing embers.

A world where automobiles run silently, without gasoline, and respond to voice commands.

A world where world-class world cuisine is minutes away. Shall we dine tonight in Mexico? France? India? Laos? - and then with a few touches of the smart phone reservations have been made. ("Want to see the menu and decide before we leave the house?")

On and on I could go, waxing lyrical, about this new, strange but wonderful world.

And then a jet plane whisked us back to... the 19th century. A place where getting the fire going requires not a touch on a remote, but the lugging in of wood and the careful nurturing of a little flame into the desired blaze.

A time and place where fresh espresso requires first the grinding of beans, then careful hand tamping so as to pull the perfect cup.

Where inter-room connectivity means walking to the foot of the stairs and calling out "Jan, are you up there?"

Where rooms are cool (some would, and have, said "cold") unless one chooses to warm them. Indeed where "creature comfort" comes from a sweater or a down-filled comforter.

Is one place or time "better?" No, I think not. Although one could certainly be more desirable to this person or that. And certainly the 21st century always-on-the-go life style is better achieved by staying in that century full time.

Me? I appreciate them both. But my life style matches my loves in the arts. Flemish and Dutch paintings. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.

Fires that crackle seem to go with this. As does freshly-ground coffee, layered garments, labors that accompany even basic creature comforts.

And I'll argue this strongly as I enter this on my hand-held computing marvel, as the still perfectly fresh cooking from two weeks ago thaws then heats to a perfect temperature in the microwave and the electric-start snowblower awaits activity when the falling snow ceases to fall.

Fun stuff, this living in two worlds and two times.

Yes, life is good.

The Syria Problem -- Some Thoughts

Some thoughts on President Obama's request for a very limited US military strike with the sole purpose of disinclining Assad and others from using banned "weapons on mass destruction"...

For a couple of generations -- really all the way back to the end of WWII -- the world has looked to America for leadership and influence in international affairs. This is in a sense only natural, since following WWII the United States was not only the one remaining undamaged major industrial power, but the one nation in the world that had justly earned a reputation for a good measure of fairness and unselfish motivation in its dealing with other nations. (Yes, I know, this is not what is being taught today in many schools. None-the-less it is true - and perhaps a worthwhile subject for a future TnT blog entry)

Human beings desire to be led. That appears to be our nature. We, on the whole, want, even need, to have someone set the course and the standards.

Part of this could be called "weakness," but only part. In truth life is too complex for each person or even group of people to deal with all of its intricacies. We thus look for someone else we trust to weigh in, and, as needed, act, on important matters.

That is one of the flaws of Obama's philosophy and actions. He puts himself forward as a 'seeing' leader but then, in case after case, proves himself not to be one. His self confidence is such that he is willing to confidently speak 'off the cuff' but he shows little actual pre-thought and even less willingness to follow through.

As this has become almost universally seen (even by those who will not for a number of reasons say it) the world has found itself without a leader. Not meaning just Obama himself, but the United States of America.

The ramification of this are enormous. All of Europe and Japan pretty much disarmed following WWII. They did so with confidence because the US was there to keep them feeling safe. That is no longer so. What will be the ramifications of this if these nations see the need to rearm? What new alliances will they form for self-protection? This today is not known and it appears not even publicly thought about.

Even teenagers know the need for having 'a rep.' Back in the `60s the Beach Boys sang "My buddies and me are getting real well known. Yeah, the bad guys know us and they leave us alone." ("I Get Around") Today the US is seen as a joke.

Yes, we still have a strong military (although it is showing signs of rot with PC issues being more important than fighting ability among the leadership) But what good is a strong military if out and out victory is not allowed because of political philosophy? 'Bad' nations are like city punks. Once the local cops stopping 'kicking asses' the punks know they can fool the courts and social workers -- and get away with anything they want over and over and over again.

That is the world as it is today. It started with Vietnam where American politicians limited the military's ability to win (President Johnson, for example, had to personally approve every strategic bombing target - and this for politial purposes) and since then it has gotten much worse.

Can anyone imagine, for example, the German or Japanese people doing what the Iraqis did during our post-invasion "occupation" -- rioting in the streets, breaking into and stealing from the national institutions? They'd have known that they'd have been shot on the spot and thus they'd never, for all their initial hatred for the occupation forces, have tried it.

Today no nation -- no national despot --  is in fear of anything or anyone outside their own borders. And so what we see happening in Syria is happening. As it did in Libya. As it is in Egypt. And in.. in... in...

No cruise missile attack or other half-hearted measure can change that.

That is where we are today. Obama just being the brightly-colored sugar frosting on the sad sagging cake.

What in Hell is Going On?

As many of us look on in horror we see one almost unbelievable story after another of inexplicable violence in towns and cities across America. The murder, late last week, of Chris Lane for example. Or last night's brutal murder of 89 year old WWII vet Delbert Belton.

Neither killing can be explained by anything we have come to see as the typcial "justification" for murders -- the type that made for good, traditional, television crime shows. Neither was a crime of passion -- the result of a love triangle. Neither was an unlawful expedient for getting wealth such as a bank robbery or even a common mugging.

What in heaven's name (or, more fittingly, our own) is going on?

Sociologists will no doubt soon be (maybe already are?) being interviewed on TV, giving their own long, often convoluted, explanations for what is going on.  My own explanation is not very convoluted at all. Here it is...

In some parts of society - especially academia - everything has long been seen as being governed by the forces of "power" and "victimhood." 

Some years ago I had a discussion with a very bright college student who insisted -- based on what she had been taught -- that prejudice and racial hate can only, by definition, go one way: From those in power to their victims. That "victimized" peoples are guilty of nothing at all if they hate the empowered. But interestingly, when she and I looked at various  hate-related words in the dictionary - something that she, to her credit, was very willing to do - we saw that no such distinction existed. She was, quite honestly, surprised by this. So, I suppose, would have been her teachers.

The current administration acts as if its actions, too, are based on the above misunderstanding. And that such an understanding colors all its decisions.

Thus when a "white" person does a misdeed he is judged wicked and fully deserving of punishment - he is, after all, one of the "empowered.". (Note that if the perpetrator does not exactly fit the "white" model a new part of the "empowered class" may be created for him - a "white Hispanic" for example.)

But if someone judged to be in the "victim" class commits a bad -- even a murderous -- deed (something "frowned upon," as Jesse Jackson said of the killing of Chris Lane)  it is explainable, and thus at least in part excusable, due to the perpetrator's said "victimhood."

It is worth noting that within the above scheme a person's having their home and/or neighborhood repeatedly violated by criminals is not judged to be "victimhood." I have yet to see this addressed much less explained.

As citizens in any supposed classification -- "empowered" or "victim" -- see this pattern of condemnation and acceptance of violence, they absorb the lessons and act accordingly. This is, IMO, why we are seeing an increase in meaningless interracial crime during the Obama era. And as programs based on these viewpoints -- be they lessening enforcement of drug laws (or changing such laws), forced "diversity", etc. -- are put into place, the increase of interracial tensions will get worse and worse until either the political climate is changed (such as occurred under Mayor Giuliani in N.Y.C.) or there comes to be outright "war" between increasingly hostile groups. Scary stuff this!

The media does not write about the above largely because they do not see it -- they have themselves internalized the power/victim argument.

The police as a body do see what is happening - and in many cases reject the "empowered vs. victim" argument. But they are being forbidden by the politicians to act upon what they see. "Profiling," "stop and frisk" laws and the like have been made illegal. Thus all the mechanisms for a peaceful resolution under the law are one by one being taken away. If that fully occurs what options will remain?

What is presently occurring in the Middle East -- the open strife between groups each struggling for power (and in some cases basic survival) -- may on the surface appear to be something completely different from what we see occurring in America, but it is not.. The left's distorted thinking about classes -- the "empowered" versus the "victimized" -- has over the last several years been applied there. The "empowered" have been disempowered, their leaders removed, jailed or killed, and the representatives of the perceived "victim" classes put in their place. The violence and strife we are now seeing throughout the region is the result. How it will end is anybody's guess (apart from the many hundreds of thousands already killed -- their days of "guessing" having come to a close).
 
Are we ready now for a "Question of the Day"? 

Are Western cities and nations next?

"Laughter. Tears. Curtain."

"Laughter. Tears. Curtain." That pithy and  powerful summary of life was put into the mouth of famed nineteenth century actor Richard Temple in the 1999 film "Topsy-Turvy." The words resonate because they are, in the outline of so, so many lives, true.

We -- if we are lucky -- come into life with laughter. Indeed that is one of the reasons that children are such a joy.

Adults laugh too of course, but the chortle of a child is something different. It is a laugh that comes naturally due to the simple joy of life itself, not as an outpouring that follows a perhaps sardonic punchline. (That type of laughter comes later.) And it is to be around that totally innocent, childish, type of laughter that most people -- even those who were not that 'into' children in their earlier lives -- want grandchildren.  To hold close that innocence, that pure joy, that optimism of what life can, and we commonly think, ought to be.

Tears come later. But sadly, in many cases, not much later.  The skinned knee. The dissatisfied parent or teacher. The realization that not all our wishes will be as easily fulfilled as in a fairy-tale. That pumpkins will forever stay pumpkins and mice, mice.

And then comes, yes, the curtain. Followed by an empty theater.

Perhaps it is the reality of the later that is the hardest blow of all. The realization that no matter how good a play we put on, how fine our performance, the audience will, before they have even left their aisle of seats, be thinking and speaking about something else. "Feel like going out for a drink?"

How we personally deal with the above sad truths will, to a great extent, determine the quality of our own lives.

Wrote wise King Solomon: "He has made everything beautiful in its time."  "He has set eternity in the human heart."

There is nothing sardonic in those words. No punchline. No laughter to cover over or defer pain. Instead there is a simple acceptance that what is, is.

This is not a lesson that, should we learn it early, we will have learned once and then forever remember. It is a lesson that we must learn over and over again.  When we get a "B-" on a paper we were confident would receive an "A." When we receive a supporting roll in a school play, not the lead role we had set our heart upon. When the office promotion goes to someone else. When our children choose a path set by their own heart, not ours.

No one studies violin in hope of one day being the orchestra's 2nd violinist. We all see ourselves, instead, in the first chair. Or better yet, center stage, taking bows, our name out front, on the marquee, up in lights. But few of us will actually reach such heights. Most, even if we truly give our best, will sit in the 2nd chair, or a 3rd.

Should knowing this take away our laughter? If, again, we look to wise king Solomon than the answer to that is "no."

"What do workers gain from their toil?" Solomon asks. And then he answers: "Know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God."

In our secular world many do not personify fate's arrows as the doings of a personal god. Many of us do not see ourselves as an eternal soul on a god quest. We are just, in our own eyes, what we are; living the life that has somehow come before us.

Interestingly Solomon, for all his confidence in this being a god-directed universe, at least allows for such a post-modern point of view. For in the context of all the above he observes "Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Yes... "Laughter. Tears. Curtain."

When we decide to go see a show, or leave on a vacation, or plan any activity whatever, we know that activity will one day come to an end. And yet we make such plans. We go to shows. We look forward to vacations. We enjoy them. As indeed we should.

Would it makes sense to go to a show and before the curtain even rises, or in the middle of the third and final act, to lose interest in what is happening on the stage because we know that it will soon end? Would not such be madness?

Should a young violin student give less than their all to their musical studies because in truth most violinists wind up playing "second fiddle"?

Should we never board a plane for that dream vacation because we know that one day -- a day likely already marked on the calender -- we will have to check out of that glorious hotel and leave the silver beaches behind?

Would that not, too, be madness? Is it not better by far for us to enjoy the laughter. To accept the tears. And yes, the curtain? 

To again quote wise Solomon, we should "eat... drink... enjoy the good for all the days of our life" knowing that, in Solomon's thoughtfully chosen words, it is "our portion."

Forced Diversity - Another "Cabrini-Green" in the Making

Among the several hidden initiatives in the Obama Administration's goal to bring "fundamental change" to America are plans, already being implemented, to use Federal power and Federal money to require greater "diversity" in each and every American community. 

According an article posted on Fox News HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, while speaking at the NAACP convention last month, spoke of a new policy called "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." This policy, according to Fox, requires HUD "to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it."

Remedy it how? Not by new laws passed by the people's representatives in congress, but by the bureaucratic tools long used by HUD -- those of influencing zoning laws, housing finance policy and infrastructure planning. Basically by telling state and local officials 'if you want our help and cooperation you must...' -And, if past HUD activities are any guide, along with the carrot will come a powerful stick.

Is it true, as Secretary Donovan reportedly said, that " no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in"?  And if a Federal bureaucracy decides that is so -- and if their collected data, in their judgment, points to "segregation and discrimination," in a given "zip code," is it then the Federal government's job to move that child and their family to another zip code?

Obviously the application of such a policy would be a very "fundamental change" in the way American communities come to exist, change and grow. A change that would potentially effect the lives of every American no matter where he or she lives. And if such a change is even being considered -- much less put in place -- is this not something that needs to be discussed openly in the public square?

If the arguments used to support such an initiative are sound they will stand scrutiny. If they are flawed the thoughts and experience of the many may bring that to light. In any case, in a nation whose foundation has been described as "government by the people and for the people" such discussion should be nothing less than a requirement.

The idea of having the Federal Government force "integration" (the word of choice before "diversity" came into favor) is nothing new.  I personally became aware of it when I was still a teenager in the 1960s. That was the period when The Diversifiers (to coin a phrase) were still pushing "pubic housing" as the answer.  -Often large apartment buildings, or groups of such, designed to house "underprivileged" inhabitants whose rent was to be subsidized by public monies according to a formula based on income and family size.

Some public housing -- built with much ballyhoo -- was in the communities where these "underprivileged" people already resided. Decrepit slum housing was torn down and replaced with new, custom designed for the purpose, structures.  Supporters of this approach to improving poor people's living conditions promised great things, all done under the rubric of "urban renewal." Other such housing was being built in the heart of other, already established, communities.

My own mother -- a very vocal supporter of many such initiatives -- explained this one to me so: "People only live in slums because they have no choice and have never experienced the pleasure of having a nice home. If given nice homes they will take pride in them and care for them. Slums will disappear."

My father expressed a somewhat different point of view. He said:  "Places become slums because the people in them don't care how they live. Many are lazy. Give them nice homes and in a few years they will have become a slum."

My mother and others like her were ever the optimists - that was clear even to me as a youth.  But what was my dad and others who thought as he did? Were they pessimists or were they realists? Time would answer that question.

By the time I had reached my twenties subsidized public housing -- often referred to as "the projects" -- had been built in many cities. Paradises these were not. What they typically were were high-rise, crime ridden, slums with halls that stank of urine.

By the 1970s the push for "public housing"in the form of large, publicly funded, building projects was largely over. By the 1990s many such "projects" had become nothing but urban blight. 

Maybe the greatest example of this -- both in its scope and the promises that had been attached to it -- was Chicago's' Cabrini-Green housing development. Indeed, if one wished to answer whose POV had proven correct -- my Mom's or my dad's -- one could simply look at the history and sad fate of the Cabrini-Green public housing development which had been, by 2011, entirely demolished.

Today the great public housing initiatives of the fifties and sixties are largely dead -- killed by what we now know to be their own folly.  Some individuals can and do change -- but the lifestyle choices people have chosen and lived by is reflected all about them -- in the very qualities of the communities in which they live. In some cases those are communities of large, gracious mansions, in others of neat clapboard-sided houses, and in others in filthy, crime-filled, urine-stinking, slums.

Note that I say "choices" -- for there is the rub. It is a sad fact of life that all mankind do not have the same "choices."  We don't, for instance, get to choose our parents. We don't, when children, get to choose the values that we are taught such an appreciation (or the lack of same) for education, or for making decisions with the long view in mind and not just the gratification of momentary pleasure.

But none-the-less it is true that the communities in which we live reflect the aggregate of such choices.

Walk or drive down any given street and you will be seeing a pastiche of the choices the inhabitants have made -- of the lives that have lived there. By parents, yes, and sadly, by their children -- especially by their teenage children.

Today -- 2013 -- the "public housing" initiative has been long passed -- ended by all the sad realities mentioned above. But the idealistic desires that created public housing still exists. As does the living spirit of people like my mom. -People desirous, not only to "see the good in people" but equally, to refuse to see the bad -- either in people or in ideas.

Does the Obama Administration's quietly administered plans to use Federal power and Federal money to force "diversity" onto every American community promise good or ill? Is race, as suggested by that initiative, the true determinant of where and how people live in today's America? Or are choices made by individuals and communities of peoples the main determining factor? And perhaps most important of all -- will people who have consistently exhibited one set of values suddenly choose to live by a different set of values just because the government has placed them in a new home -- in a community whose underlying values may be very different from their own?

In a truly free society with a government "by the people and for the people" we should at least be able to have this discussion out loud and in public. After all, you can always decide to dynamite a Cabrini-Green when you discover that the thinking behind it's creation was flawed. But what do you do when the spirit that created such a place has been forced into every town, village and city in the land?

"Forced Diversity - Another "Cabrini-Green" in the Making" was originally written for, and published by American Thinker. It is reposted here with permission.

Like Schools of Little Fishies

Today we get to see everything.

It wasn't always that way. Until the advent of the camera and the technology called rotogravure the average person never got to see things much beyond their own town or city -- much less views and visions from distant and obscure places on the earth (or beyond).

TV changed all that. Starting in the 1950s the average Joe got to see everything. Well, everything he was allowed to see. Taboos were then still common. TV was a "family medium."  So yes, we saw "everything," but not everything.

Oddly, of all the things I got to see growing up in the early age of TV perhaps the most amazing of them -- the one that most grabbed my imagination -- were the images from under the sea. Not the big scary creatures -- the sharks or the octopuses. No, but the little fishies. The swarms of them. The ones like me.

There would be Jacques Cousteau -- surrounded by miles and miles of open sea with all its wonders -- and there would be the "kids" -- doing what?  Doing nothing. Going nowhere. In a crowd. Surrounded by other fishies just like themselves. Swimming all together in one direction. Directed by?  Of that I was never sure.

And then came the final blow. What was this called,  this crowd of seemingly mindless, fish? It was called a "school."  How fitting!

"Swim for your lives!" I wanted to shout. "Get away!"  "Go! Go! There is so much to see!"  But they wouldn't go. There they'd stay, going nowhere. All together. In a crowd. In their school.

To this day that vision -- of all the little fishies swimming together -- resonates with me and makes me wonder.  What is there about being in a crowd that has such appeal. Is it the supposed safety?

That's the reason the TV announcer gave.  Together, in a school, the fish had the protection of numbers. They, he assured the listener with an authoritative tone, would not be nearly as easy to 'pick off' as a single fish would be if it were off on its own.

That, it seemed to me, was quite a price to pay for "safety."

But what about from the little fishies' perspective? Could he not swim where he wanted within the confines of the group. Up. Down. Left. Right. Was this not freedom enough?

Obviously the fish thought so. For there they stayed. Led by who knew what. The current? Unseen leaders? The crowd?

As I grew older that vision of the fish has stayed with me. Especially as I watched the currents of society and the way it, just like the current of the sea, led people here and there, all together, as if they, too, were in a school.

The crazes of interests. The odd currents that made people, all together, go here and there following this craziness and that. Sometimes calmly. Other times in a near panic.

Examples of this a rife. Here's a doozy:

If one listens to the televised presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F, Kennedy one will hear one reference after another to places called "Quemoy" and "Matsu." -Little Islands off the coast of mainland China.

These little islands were of such interest back then that the U.S. and China almost went to war over them.  To war!  Could you today, fifty odd years later, even find them on a map?

War?  Over that?  Yup. It almost happened.  And all the little fishes were swimming there together.

Then there are the little crazies. The fixations that oddly, suddenly, catch the interest of the school. 

Remember, back in the 1970s, all the talk about whether or not people should eat red M&Ms? On and on it went. On TV. In the newspapers. In magazines. At the hairdressers. At the barbershop.

It all started with a little Russian study that said that something called "red dye #2" -- a food coloring used in things like frankfurter casings -- could, if eaten in large quantities, lead to cancer. OMG!  Get rid of it!  "Fire! Fire!" yelled the crowd.  And then someone noticed that among the colors of the popular chocolate candy called "M&Ms" were.... gasp! ...red ones.

A near panic ensued. Newspaper articles. TV commentary.  All of which was quieted only when M&M Mars, the company that made the candy, stopped making and selling the red ones. That lasted for nearly a decade. (Today the red ones are back)

Want to know something funny?  There never was any "red dye #2" in M&Ms, but no one it seems had bothered to ask. 

The whole silly scare was for nothing. 


Today the kids are still in school.  Yes, the literal ones of course, but the figurative, fishy, ones as well. Odd fixations -- "crazies" -- still excite the crowds and get them swimming willy nilly, hither and yon..

How can you tell if something is "a crazy?"  Here are the tools I use: 

If a subject suddenly become the focus of intense interest that was not something you commonly thought about before -- not even a little -- it is probably "a crazy."

If the so-called "talking heads" are chattering about it endlessly it's likely "a crazy."

And if the Hollywood types are making it into a cause then you can be pretty damn sure.

Of course following these things -- swimming along with "the school -- may be just fine. After all, almost everyone does it.

Maybe the real crazy ones are people like me. People who prefer to swim out on their own.

After all, Jacques Cousteau seemed to think so. And who am I to argue with Jacques?