The Bible’s reference to “cattle on a thousand hills” seems to flow, metaphorically speaking contrary to the actual feeding habit of cattle. That is, cattle tend to assemble, or graze, as do grazing animals in general, in areas where grass grows. And, in my observations, grass tends to grow much more prominently in the valleys, rather than on the hills. While the focus of this writing is not on cattle per se, it is focused on the feeding habits of grazing animals as a metaphor for its real message.
And the real message of this writing is to inform Americans, all Americans, but in particular, those Americans of the 17th (1926 - 1955) and 18th (1946-1975) generations that are still trying to figure out what has become of the industrious and productive America handed off to them by their parents and grandparents. They can easily see, and it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that things are not working as well as before. During their early lives and the lives of their parent and grandparent’s generation, the primary source of stress or tension in the nation had to with questions of race and of racial equality, or in-equality not the nation’s productivity. Since the civil-rights movements of the 1950s, 60s and 70s seem to have essentially resolved the race issue, we should be more productive and thus moving forward even faster than before. And yet, with the shoulders of both races, and both genders pressed to the wheel we appear to slowing down, why. What has happened to the industrial might of this, the “greatest nation on God’s green earth?” Using an aerodynamic metaphor, just when engines are at full throttle, that is, the social turbulence between the genders and the races has been abated, and now with everyone participating fully in the in the workforce, the nation should be soaring, instead, it appears that we’re stalling out. Why?
To answer that question, we are obliged to switch back to the metaphor of the grazing animals. First, it is necessary to understand that the thing that initially made this country the greatest nation on God’s green earth and greatest source of economic power in the world was its capacity to produce. The nation had a democratic system of government, a brand new creation, and one that liberated the creative initiative of its citizens. And it had adopted capitalism, or the free enterprise, a European innovation, as the engines of its economy. So governed and structured, the nation knew no boundaries to its capacity, and essentially there were none. During the lives of the 17th and 18th generations of American, the production capacity of America provided for the needs of practically the whole world. Products that were produced in America were in great demand because Americans could produce quality products more efficiently and thus less expenses than other less developed nations. The reason for this enormous success was because the American people had hitched their wagon to the most powerful socioeconomic engine of all times; free enterprise capitalism and the technological innovations spurned by it.
However, like all things, free enterprise capitalism has both its positive and negative edges and it cuts equally efficiently from either of the two edges. And worst yet, free enterprise capitalism can’t be owned. It is a maverick, an animal without a brand and roams free at its own will. We can see that behavior pattern exhibited over the past centuries when it migrated from Western Europe across the Atlantic to America. Now, having grazed the green grass of the Americas, the unbranded animal appears to be migrating across the Pacific to the greener valleys of Asia.
And it’s no mystery, or it should be no mystery. Free Enterprise Capitalism is the metaphorical animal that we introduced back at the beginning of this article. It roams freely always migrating toward the source of the lowest cost of labor. Over the past years, the cost of labor is America has been steadily driven up by American’s continued demands for higher and higher lifestyles. Those demands have continued to drive up the cost of labor. And, failing to continue creating innovative and cost cutting methods of production, as mass production was a hundred years ago, the free enterprise capitalist animal has begun its migration eastward, to still greener pastures. The only way to lure the animal back across the Pacific is by developing a technology that substantially reduces the cost of production.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Take a Bow

Bring Out the Champagne! Pop the Corks!
President Bush, you and Vice President Cheney take a bow.
You have earned my appreciation, and you deserves the appreciation of each American, and ultimately the appreciation of all the peoples of the world, western and eastern, for introducing democracy to the Islamic people of Iraq. We applaud you because you had the insight and the courage to see Iraq, not simply as Saddam Hussein's threatening source of mass destruction, but more specifically, because you also saw him and his Iraq as an open door into the Islamic world.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney, thanks to your insight and courage, the Islamic, or Muslim world is currently caught up in the throes of birth pains. Pains associated with their struggle to shake off the weight of their medieval identity and to embrace the twenty-first century as free and democratic institutions.

Thanks

Developing a More Postive Image of Ourselves

Developing a More Positive Image of Ourselves

When I was growing up in Mississippi, there was a radio and subsequently, a television program called Amos ‘n’ Andy. The Amos ‘n’ Andy program began in the 1920s and ran rather successfully until the late 1950s and into the1960s. The radio and television programs were immensely popular with both black and white Americans.
However, while the program might have been popular with the black American community, and it was popular in my home as well, it was not very flattering to people of the black American community. In fact, it was downright demeaning to people of the black American community, but apparently because it offered black people the opportunity to hear themselves on the radio and see themselves on television, it was deemed acceptable.

The program encountered its first protest when a minister W.J. Walls, an AME bishop, wrote a letter to the Pittsburg Courier complaining of how the program was demeaning to members of the black American community. The Pittsburg Courier continued to run protests against the program and in 1954 the radio program was cancelled. Subsequently, members of the black American community serving in the U.S. military also took up the protest regarding the images of black people that were being conveyed to foreign nations. And in the 1960s the even television program also was cancelled. I have cited the historical account of the Amos ‘n’ Andy program above because I believe that there is a real danger that members of the black American community are currently falling into a similar mindset of accepting the same genre of misguided and biased television and other media portrayals of members of the black American community. These current portrayals may appear humorous and even harmless, but so did the Amos ‘n’ Andy program generations ago.

When writing my book Generations; A Commentary of the African Immigrants and their American Descendants, several years ago, I wrote a specific chapter on the concept of “Affirming Myths.” In that chapter I characterized an affirming myth as one having the potential to serve as motivation for an assortment of movements and events. In fact, affirming myths have long been recognized for the influence they have and their potential to motivate a people to move forward.
In another chapter of the book of Generations, I wrote that contrary to the notion, held by some, that it is okay for members of the black American community to use racial slurs against each other, so long as they are only used in the presence of other members of the black American community.
My response to such an errant assertion is that it is absolutely untrue. The use of racial slurs within the black American community is perhaps ten times more damaging than its use by persons outside of the black American community. The harmful effect of our use of such negative stereotypes is that they undermine the motivation of our children. Use of such stereotypes can be further argued that their frequent use has had the net effect of building a self-defeating barrier to the aspirations of black Americans. Also, there is reason to believe that the socioeconomic mobility of the black American community has been directly and adversely affected by the undermining properties of such negativism.

In much the same manner as the use of street language during a job interview can prevent one from getting the job, the use such negative stereotypes can prevent one from moving to a higher sense of self-esteem. The sociological paradigm of negativism works on the same principal as the adage that “misery loves company.” In the same manner that those in misery will seek to surround themselves with persons of similar circumstances, so do the discouraged and down-trodden love company. The seeds of such discontent and discouragement are sown daily into the hearts and minds of young black Americans by our denigration of each other. Over the last generation alone, the parent-to-children conversations of too many black American families have had an injurious effect upon the way black Americans youths view themselves. If we are to succeed at attaining socioeconomic parity by the twenty-second generation, the black American community must work ceaselessly to disengage itself from practices that cause injury, and develop appropriate remedies to assuage the damage already done.

Who is apologizing?

Indeed, who is apologizing, and to whom?
The news, television or Internet media, gives frequent and it seems numerous accounts of president Obama apologizing to various nations and peoples for what the president apparently feels have been the sins of America. The news accounts, particularly the more conservative news accounts, often contain firm criticisms of the president for these apologizes.
While I tend to agree with the conservative press regarding the president's apparent efforts to exorcise the sins of this country, I do think it fitting that we, and particularly we conservatives, should take stock of the fact, or at least the probably the very election of Barak Hussein Obama as president of the United States of America is itself an apology.

Michael Jackson, Over-the-top, and Over-the-edge

Michael Jackson, over-the-top, and over-the-edge. What ought one say about the life of Michael Jackson, other than he was obviously driven by his art? Should we simply say that he was a musical phenomenon; that he thrilled millions of people around the world; that he perhaps sold more records, CDs, or DVDs than anyone else, and leave it at that. Or, should we give more emphasis to the problems that seemed to have dogged Michael's personal and profession life. I think none of these fully defined the Michael Jackson that I observed on the television.

The Michael Jackson that I saw and admired was all about freedom. That's right "freedom" the freedom to be all that he could be. His initial expression of freedom was when he elected to perform as a solo, rather than with the family. He also clashed with many in the the black American community when he took steps to limit, or obscure his racial identity; he clashed with societal conventions when he refused to comply with social mores and finally; we've all read of his apparent clashes with the legal system and finally this apparent ultimate clash with medical protocol.

Was he the NASCAR driver who risked everything for a victory, or a Van Gogh who simply lived too close to the edge. No matter, we shall all miss Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop"

LesW

An Election, or a Revolution?

Was the 2008 U.S. election truly and election, or was it more specifically a cultural

revolution? I think it was a cultural revolution comparable to the one occurring in Iran today.

Ponder this; in a post 9/11 era what are the likelihood that the American mind was ready to elect a president name Barak Hussein Obama; and not just the name, but the questions surrounding

his Islamic orientation( a Muslim father; growing up Indonesia, a Muslim-oriented country), and, even questions concerning the truth of his American citizenship. If you still believe our was simply an election, in the traditional American way, then I've got a bridge located along the east coast that I would like to sell you.

What I believed actually occurred in November of 2008 was forensic evidence of a fault line that has developed, right here in this the greatest country on God's earth. It's not geological, as say the San Andreas fault line that threatens California, but yet a fault line nevertheless, and one that carries essentially a similar risk, not just for California, but for the whole nation. One side of the fault line is occupied by the traditional role the white American male has played in this country. The opposite side of the fault line is occupied by the emerging role of the white American female [a role I loosely refer to as being the second advent of the woman-the role of Eve being the first]. Along with the white American female is assembled an assorted coalition of others; some young white American males who think they too have reasons to be disenchanted. And, of course the various ethnic and racial minorities who see in Obama their ensign, their Moses, if you would, who would lead them out of their perceived socioeconomic dis-enfranchisement.

If my characterization is indeed correct, it would behoove the Republicans to rethink their strategy for the next election. They will need to fine-tuned their talking points. I suggest that the party revisit its 1994 strategty as spelled out in the Contract With America. In it specificy reasons were put forth as to why the Republican Party's plan for America was superior to that of the opposition. The usual and customary rhetoric is not sufficiently productive and should be abandoned. The party should state and defend it's traditional values, plans and strategies for improving the lives of Americans. It should say so in a language and manner with the least ambigiuity.
When we put our defense of moral issues, we should defend those moral issues on the basis, not so much that they are religious values, but present then on the basis of their value they offer Americans in the present, and in the generational future. If these arguments can't be made, then the party should leave such discussions to churches to put forth and defend.

Les W

It was comforting to see the administration finally take an affirmative stand against the abuses of the Iranian government, thanks in large part to constant prompting by the more enlightened. However, to hear the positive expressions and notes of satisfactory glee offered by those same enlightened ones, one would think that the president had undergone some manner, degree of nationalistic conversion. I didn't see that. All I saw was the child finally saying the word "da da" after being prompted with constant and repetitive urging. Then, seeing the proud father jumping up and down with notes of positive expressions and satisfactory glee for hearing his son repeat the magic word.

Les W