Reminisence: Childhood Reading, Part 1

***


1


My parents were readers.  There were always books on their bedside tables.  I didn't see them reading in bed until I must have been in high school... because I was sent to bed before they went to bed.  But I always knew they would be reading just before going to sleep, probably every night.


Dad would usually have one or more of his magazines on his table, or under the windows at the side of his bed.  He'd have Newsweek, for example, or maybe the Reader's Digest.


Both parents liked mysteries, and novels by Nevil Shute.  Sometimes they bought them, and often they would get them from the library.


2


To a little boy, our city's public library was an imposing structure.  It was beautiful with a wide expanse of white stone steps leading up to the large wooden door.  The library faced a quiet little park too, with a white gazebo or bandstand in its center in the shade under the big live-oak trees.


I don't think I was more than five or so when Mother would regularly drop me off at the foot of all those steps at the library and stay there in the car as I climbed up and eventually opened the big door.  Then I would turn and watch her drive away.  "Don't leave the children's section," she would tell me in the car, so that she could be sure to find me later.  By that time, I must have known the Children's Room pretty well.  It was down the hall to the left.


When I would go in the front door, I wouldn't look at the people up there behind the big circulation desk.  Sometimes, one of them would say sweetly, "Hello there! How are you today?"  And I would feel right at home.


3


They had a limit on the number of books you could check out for a week.  Otherwise, I would have gotten more than six, even if that meant making two trips down and up those big steps just to carry them all.  There was a long series of books for children about great Americans.  I read them all, six at a time, many of them more than once.  Those are the books I most associate in my memory with that library.


I remember "George Washington Carver: Boy Scientist," and "Tom Edison: Boy Inventor."  I guess they made it seem that each of these great Americans had started out on their eventual career while they were still in short pants.  I wonder if I imagined a book about me one day, "Byron Derrick: Boy Reader"?


But there were dozens of these wonderful books: "Clara Barton: Girl Nurse," "Meriwether Lewis: Boy Explorer," "Kit Carson: Boy Trapper," "Wilbur and Orville Wright: Boy Fliers," and so on...


I imagine that these little biographies would seem naive and even silly today, even to a child; but they set my imagination zooming, taking me from state to state, from culture to culture, from profession to profession, from era to era in ways that felt liberating and inspiring.  That must have been the goal, and at least with me, it worked. 


I don't recall one of these books about George Washington.  Would it have been called "George Washington: Boy Father of Our Country"?  Or "George Washington: Boy First President"? Or what about Andrew Jackson, "Boy Indian Hater"?  "Babe Ruth: Boy Sultan of Swat" or "Boy Bambino"? What about "Susan B. Anthony: Girl Feminist"?


4


I must have read lots of other books from the public library.  It was a big room with  a Children's Librarian watchful and helpful.  I used to sit at the side tables and look through, or read, the encyclopedias.  My favorite was Collier's.  It did have pictures, but that wasn't that unusual.  I seem to remember liking the boldness of the print and the page layout, that sort of thing.  So many subjects seemed so interesting.  I must have looked up each of the "Great Americans" too.  Sitting Bull, Davy Crockett, Jim Thorpe, Helen Keller, William Penn, Pocahontas...


The other encyclopedias were the Britannica Jr. and Compton's (too bulky, print too small, margins too narrow) and of course The World Book, which Mother eventually bought for my sister and me when my sister entered 9th or 10th grade.  At the library I looked at that one too, but thought it looked like it had been written for kids!


It's not possible now to sort out which books I read from the public library, and which ones came from the school libraries...  Some just must have been available in both places, the ones at the public library being in better shape, cleaner and less worn...


5


My elementary school was small, with only two classes for each grade.  But the library seemed large enough, double the size of the classrooms (as it seems in my memory now).  I think that the children started going to the library in the 4th grade or so.  I don't think you were allowed to stay more than a few minutes each time, and you could take out only one book at a time.


In my memory I associate with the school library at elementary school fond experiences with the historical novels of an author called Stephen W. Meader.  I had learned from my mother that it was a good idea to commit to memory the name of the author of any favorite book, so that the next time or at another library you could maybe find another book by the same man or woman.  This was a new strategy for me.  At the public library I had (at first) settled on that one long series of biographies.  I paid no attention to who the author was.


But I still remenber some specific novels by Mr. Meader.  One was about Paul Revere's famous ride, Who Rides in the Dark?  Another was about the development of the railroads across 19th century America:  The Long Trains Roll.  I found one of Meader's books particularly exciting; it was about a submarine.  The Sea Snake it was called.  I also remember Down the Big River, the title of which is all I do recall; it must have been about the Mississippi.  I could look up Meader - in fact, I will look him up - but his name and these titles have stayed with me in my memory for 50 or 60 years.


[The local public library system where I live now has a variety of children's books by Stephen W. Meader, most of them co-authored.  The earliest is dated 1920 (The Black Buccaneer) and the latest (A Blow for Liberty), which is labeled a first edition, dated 1965.  He is said to have lived from 1892 to 1977, pretty close to my Dad's years.


Among the titles at my library are some that seem familiar, like Lumberjack, Boy With a Pack, T-Model Tommy (I just know I read that one), Clear for Action!, Whaler Round the Horn, and "Guns for the Saratoga."  That one was published in 1955 when I would have been 13 (a little old for that sort of thing, as it now seems to me).  The last Meader book that I had remembered without prompting - The Sea Snake - was published in 1944 when I was two.]


6


I didn't own many books, but I remember many others from one library or another.  There were sports books, for instance, like Flashing Spikes by Frank O'Rourke.  His name is one I learned since that particular book of his was such a favorite.  Mother would sometimes say, "Why Derrick, haven't you read this one before?"  Maybe she thought I took six every week just to be doing it.  "I just want to read it again," I must have said.


Another author's name I still remember was John R. Tunis.  I have the sense I read quite a few of his; the only title I remember is The Iron Duke, about an Olympic track star (could it have been in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin?).  But I think most of the ones I remember enjoying were about baseball.  One of them was called The Kid From Tomlinston.  At least I think that one was also by Tunis; it was certainly one of my favorites.


I also liked some animal stories, a lot of them about dogs, I think.  Eventually they included Jack London's White Fang books and The Call of the Wild.  Two that were given to me as Christmas presents were Kazan, the Wolf Dog and Son of Kazan.  These were  written by a man named Albert Payson Terhune.  Having three names may have been the thing for dogs boy-book novelists; another name I remember was (really) James Oliver Curwood.


Back in the school library, I remember often looking through a reference book called Twentieth-Century Authors.  I don't remember what exactly drew me to that one, along with the encyclopedias, but I had the habit of thumbing through it from time to time, especially when I couldn't find a book to check out.


7


The living room at home had bookshelves on most walls, with Mother's and Dad's old books on them. Mostly Dad's, I thought (why I don't know).  A few shelves were devoted to old National Geographics, but I didn't look at them much. There also were always current issues of magazines on the coffee table in front of the couch, including the Saturday Evening Post (whose cartoons were the best) and Reader's Digest (whose little jokes at the bottom of many pages were also favorites), as well as the Look, Collliers, or Newsweek that my Dad didn't have upstairs.

There were Tarzan novels, one of my Dad’s youthful entertainments. He told me that at one time – probably during college, now that I think of it – he thought he could write an interesting article on Edgar Rice Burroughs. But that little collection of older paperbacks was as much an aberration as the old National Geographics.

Above those old things, my parents’ enjoyment in reading mysteries was reflected. There was a whole shelf of The Saint books, light blue. (I tried, but as an early and then a later adolescent, I just couldn’t get into them. Maybe now?) And there were a lot of books with black covers that had a little man logo with a magnifying glass, printed at the bottom of the spine in red against the black, and the words “Crime Club.” My recollection is that these were all terrific. Several were by Philip MacDonald. I’m not sure of any other authors, but one other title was The Seven Keys to Bald Pate. (I liked that one too.) Most of these had been published before 1940, and most stories were set in England.

Nearby, as well as all the way across the room, were some classics. There was one collection of Modern Library editions, for instance, with Somerset Maugham and Thomas Mann and Zola. Dad had also collected those inexpensive editions before we'd been born. There was a large collection of all the Stories of O. Henry; I liked them quite a bit, maybe even a little more than those in the big volume of stories of Maupassant.

At one point as I neared completion of high school, I decided that I should read the longest novel in the house (i.e. living room). Les Miserables was edged out for that honor by what turned out to be a historical novel by Hervey (was it pronounced as though it were "Harvey"?) Allen called Anthony Adverse. I barely remember it, I’m sorry to say. Another of the longer ones I read was Maugham’s Of Human Bondage. That was not what I’d anticipated – which could have been what, exactly? – but I found it gripping, intense, and fascinating.

Sanders of the River (I think the river was the Congo) was another sort of thing entirely, an adventure novel. I admired it, enjoyed reading it enough that I looked for another novel by Edgar Wallace at the library. Whatever I found there was disappointing, however.

On the same bookcase on that side of the room were some anthologies, one of them with entertaining short stories and little poems, edited by Clifton Fadiman (only a name on a book spine to me at the time). I remember that a hilarious story by James Thurber was in that collection. Nearby on the shelf was also a complete collection of Shakespeare's plays.  It had an ornate dark blue cover with silver highlights.  It was published, as I recall, in the United States (not in New York... Chicago maybe?), in 1889 or something like that.  My Dad was never a rich man, had in fact lived in real poverty until his thirties, so he must have bought this volume used.  He had even put in it - as he had with several of the classics - a book plate into which he had typed his name (not printed for him, you know).  He must have been proud to own his own collection of Shakespeare's plays...

Also on those shelves was a regular favorite of mine that, over a number of years, I would take down now and then when I had a few minutes to fill, waiting for something to happen in the living room... maybe supper in the kitchen nearby? It was The Best Loved Poems of the American People.


"Casey at the Bat" was in that volume, as well as other poems that just about everyone was familiar with: "The Man on the Flying Trapeze," "The Raven," "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere," "The Charge of the Light Brigade."  Maybe it was there that I first saw Kipling's "On the Road to Mandalay," which was also a song in my mother's youth.  She liked to play it for me on the old upright piano we had in the living room... when I would always beg her to play "American Patrol" too.


8


I'm having much too much fun reminiscing about my early reading experiences.  Too much, that is, to try to continue all the way till I finish with the subject.  I will call this piece "Part One."  And continue some time later.


But before closing Part One, let me add that several years ago, I actually bought for myself a used copy of The Best Loved Poems of the American People, published in 1936.  But when I first got it, I went through the Table of Contents and made a check in the margin by the names of those poems I remembered as childhood favorites.  Among those old favorites I have already mentioned were these others: "Guilty Or Not Guilty?," "The Bank Thief," "If," "I have a Rendezvous with Death" and "In Flanders Fields," "Old Ironsides," and "Elegy on the Death of a Mad Dog."


Extra special favorites, along with those I first mentioned, include "Hell in Texas" (like the "Mad Dog" poem, a comic piece) and "Invictus" which, as captain of my soul, I still think of as one of my favorites.


to be continued


***

Freedom and Power

***

1

Freedom and Power are intimately connected.  In the extreme case, if a person were all-powerful she or he would be utterly free, while a person who was completely powerless and could not act in any way, would have no freedom.  We could ask, "Are Freedom and Power, at base, the same thing?"

2

Thomas Jefferson defined "Liberty," another word for Freedom, as "unobstructed action according to our will."  Without power, we might say, there is no freedom, since a person who is prevented (or "obstructed") from acting as he or she wishes (or "wills") has little or no freedom.  Conversely, without freedom to do as a person wishes, a person's power is significantly curtailed.

We U. S. Americans are proud to say, "We are a free people."  However, that can be true only to the degree that as a people, we are empowered to act as we wish - to vote, to change jobs or residences, to buy what we need, to make love or not, to raise children or to live without children, to do virtually anything we want.  (Only "virtually," of course, because we are not free morally or legally to harm others.)

So the first important question is, Are U. S. Americans in 2011 empowered to do as they please, so long as their actions do not harm others?  We would hope we could give a resounding Yes to that question.

And the second key question is, Do U. S. Americans in 2011 have a roughly equal opportunity to do as they please (without harming others)?  Surely most of us would hope to be able to say Yes to that question also... because if we cannot say, honestly and truthfully, that both conditions - both power and freedom - are present to virtually everyone of us, then we are not the free people we want and claim to be.  Even if a few or some people are empowered to do most of what they want to do, we are not a "free people" unless all of us have a roughly equal chance to achieve enough economic, social, and political power to do most of what we want.

3

Like those in other modern societies, Americans are proud to contrast themselves, with respect to power and freedom, with many cultures of the past.  For instance, we take pride in the difference between our culture and medieval societies, in which what power and freedom there was, was concentrated in the nobility, while serfs or peasants had very little of either, and artisans and merchants had barely more.  All people's station in life was not determined by their personal abilities, efforts, or achievements but by inheritance.  From the first, Americans have been proud to say that is not true here.

The medieval peasants farmed the nobleman's fields.  They were not free to move to other towns or other career opportunities; they could not realistically aspire to join the rich nobility, ever.  They worked hard even when they were ill, old, or infirm.  They were poor, subject to famine and disease.  They lived in homes that, even for that day, were primitive, unclean, cold, and cramped.  They owned little, perhaps not even the tools they used to work the fields.  They had no money or property, and were powerless to make significant changes in that situation.  In other words, they had neither power nor freedom.

Compared to the peasants as well as to the artisans and merchants who made up a small, "middle-class" group, the nobles were powerful and free.  They also inherited their social rank.  Nobles controlled the servants and peasants who worked for them.  They meted out what justice there was, not according to laws or even precedents, but according to their own interest and that of their neighboring nobles and allies.  If they had reason to, they could join the relatively comfortable clergy.  Their power brought them wealth, allowed them to eat well and to live in at least relative comfort.  Much more than the others in their society, they could do what they wanted; at least they were relatively more free than anyone else.  Also, at least in a small region, their power was virtually absolute.

4

Today, U. S. Americans think those in our society have far more power over their own lives - or in others words, are far more free - than most people in medieval times.

That has not always been true, of course.  For many generations, many southern Americans owned black slaves.  These unfortunates were, like medieval peasants, neither powerful nor free.

In America now, however, we like to say, "Anyone can grow up to become President," which if true or true of most Americans would indicate a remarkably wide distribution of political power.  America may be the only culture in which it is a cliche to ask a child, "And what do you want to be when you grow up?" implying that to Americans, every possibility is open.  This would indicate a remarkably widespread degree of individual freedom.

It would seem that in order to feel comfortable claiming that U. S. Americans are "a free people," we would ask ourselves a few hard questions.  Asking them would help us determine to what degree Americans are in fact empowered to a sufficient degree to be considered free, able to act, unobstructed, to do pretty well what they please.

5

What would prevent people from being empowered to this extent?

In our history of being a slave-owning society, a significant obstruction to freedom has been discriminatory laws, laws that are applied differently to different people or groups of people.  Today, part of the supreme law of the land - for all people, in all states - says explicitly that it would be illegal (unconstitutional) to apply laws inequitably in such a way.  Have we achieved this ideal, or are we as a people making good progress toward it?

The discriminating laws imprisoning slaves in bondage until 1863 consciously prevented slaves from moving toward freedom by prohibiting their learning to read and write.  Are there U. S. Americans today who are effectively prevented from moving toward freedom by their limited opportunity to get a good education?  Are we at least making progress in that direction?

A person who is sick or handicapped cannot be said to be - during that time of infirmity - to be free to do mostly as he or she wishes.  The infirmity itself is an obstacle in the way of empowering freedom.  Are U. S. Americans generally free of infirmity; are we a healthy people, generally speaking?  Are there many of us or are significant groups of us whose health is unnaturally low because of unhealthy environments or inadequate or unavailable heath care?  Are we making progress to be sure this is not true?

It seems obvious that someone whose wealth or income is so small as to be barely adequate to provide food - or smaller than even that - is not free to do as she or he wishes.  A free people would have few such individuals and would work to eliminate poverty as much as possible.  Are we progressing toward our ideals in this regard?

6

Do virtually all Americans today at least have a roughly equal opportunity - equal power - to attain financial security, good health care, a sound education, and an absence of laws enforced in ways discriminating against them? 

If not, we cannot rightfully claim to be "a free people," and unless we are at least making good progress toward being a society of secure, well-educated, relatively strong, and equally advantaged people, then - despite our Pledge of Allegiance - we have abandoned the pursuit of "liberty and justice for all."

Americans who, like their parents, are trapped in poverty, badly educated, unemployed and financially insecure, vulnerable to injury and illness, and living in a violence-ridden neighborhood are virtually powerless to do what they might do and what they want to do.  The millions of Americans in this predicament cannot be considered free.

And it is unfortunately not true that "America is the land of the free."

***

Conservatives, Liberals, and the "American Way"

***

1

Last November I wrote about the historical meaning of the words "liberal" and "conservative."  Today, despite some apparent confusion, these meanings still seem relevant. 

I wrote then:

The word "liberal" ... comes from the Latin word meaning "free," just as the word "liberty" comes from the Latin for "freedom."  ...[The word] "conservative" comes from the Latin, meaning "to keep intact" or "to guard."

"Liberalism" means a belief in the paramount value of freedom.

...A "Conservative" person ... wants to keep social order, to maintain or restore traditions, and to protect established customs and practices.

And, in November, I added this comment:

...We struggle to find the right balance between the value of the individual's freedom and the value of the social order.  ...Liberals tend to value individual freedom more than Conservatives, and Conservatives tend to place a higher value than Liberals do on maintaining traditional standards and social order.

However, both Liberals and Conservatives ... agree that in certain instances, the good of society should be emphasized over the freedom of the individual. ... Both Conservatives and Liberals also agree that individuals have civil rights, protected by the supreme law of the land, the U. S. Constitution. Where is the proper balance between the needs of the social order and the rights of the individual? A Conservative would generally place the balance point closer to the side of tradition and social order, while the Liberal would tend to place the balance point closer to the side of the individual and free choice.


How are the root meanings of these terms, which after all  refer to the basic political division dividing our culture at the present time, still relevant?

2
 
The contrast between Conservatives and Liberals today tends to highlight Conservatives' inclination to focus on our need to pursue economic prosperity, while Liberals are inclined to emphasize our desire for social justice.  Here again, of course, this contrast is not absolute.  Conservatives may well value social justice to a degree, and Liberals certainly value economic prosperity as well. 

Both groups value both goals to varying degrees; but while Liberals would sacrifice a degree of personal prosperity in order to achieve a higher degree of social justice, Conservatives would sacrifice a certain degree of social justice - as in the distribution of wealth, for example - in order to achieve a higher degree of what they perceive as economic prosperity or the pathway to it.

To apply the original meanings of "Conservative" coming from "guardian" and "Liberal" coming from "liberty," it is convenient to focus first on their contrasting approaches to social or moral questions, reserving discussing of financial and political issues for later.

3

Conservatives tend to see themselves as the guardians of traditional practices and values.  Established religion, for instance, is seen as the source of the highest wisdom regarding personal choice and behavior.  Those whom we call "Fundamentalist Christians," who regard the Bible as the literal truth and as the only reliable guidance to morality, can also be called "Conservatives."  It is the duty of Conservatives not only to determine their own actions by means of tried and true religious teachings but also to work toward moral order in society by requiring all people - even those of different faiths, or no religious belief at all - to behave as their established or conservative religious teachings require.

For instance, it is not only necessary for such Conservatives to control their own personal behavior by refusing to abort even an unexpected or unhealthy fetus; it also seems their responsibility to prevent others from doing so.  If the law of the land does not conform with their religious customs in this and other ways, then Conservatives - in order to preserve tradition and establish the social and moral order which they seek - see it as their responsibility to change the law.

Same-sex relations are likewise not only to be avoided, but to be positively prohibited for everyone.

Liberals, on the other hand, stress the need for all individuals to be free to make their own decisions, even on such deeply significant matters as birth and sex.  Social or moral order, for Liberals, is less significant than individuals' liberty to choose for themselves.

Note: it is an anomaly of our time that "Libertarians," who value individual choice     (i. e. freedom) to an extreme, should tend to align themselves with Conservatives.


Of course, even Liberals recognize the need for society to protect itself from foreign aggression, from theft, from assault and other threats to security, restraining the freedom of would-be criminals and aggressors.  Conservatives in turn recognize that all individuals have the capacity to violate traditional religious taboos and must be held individually responsible for their immoral actions. 

The balance between the pursuit of individual liberty and the need for social and moral order is in a different place for Conservatives and for Liberals.

4


The contrast between Conservative and Liberal values on political and economic concerns is less evident and more complex than the contrast between them on social and moral issues.  But this contrast too reveals that the difference between the two groups lies in where each finds the proper balance between contrasting goals both of whose value is acknowledged by everyone in each group.

Conservatives highlight what they call "the free market" because such an economic system allows - or even promotes - the generation of wealth and prosperity.  The fact that the wealth generated may become concentrated among a relative few is not particularly troubling.  Also of little concern is the fact that one result of "the free market" tends to be cycles of "boom" and "bust," huge swings from high employment and rising mean incomes for the many, to widespread low employment rates and falling wages. 

Such would be of more concern to Liberals, who stress the value of social justice where all individuals have a real opportunity to prosper based on their personal abilities and ambitions and on their having the freedom to pursue their own interests.

In a time of financial downturn, the Liberal most regrets the greater number's loss of freedom to pursue their own interests.  In such a time, on the other hand, the Conservative most regrets the loss by those in economic power of their ability to continue increasing their fortunes.

Conservatives might even be ready to believe that such a concentrated accumulation of wealth benefits society generally, as in the saying "A rising tide lifts all boats," even if experience continues to show this is not true.  Liberals, on the other hand, may be tempted to intervene in "the free market" to such an extreme that everyone's opportunity to pursue their own interests is hampered by stifled ambition.

5

Ironically, extremist alternatives, whether Liberal or Conservative, have proven to limit progress toward the very goal being pursued.

For instance, an extreme degree of control over the economy in order to free individuals from financial constraints can in fact lead to individuals' loss of freedom to perform in the economy as one would wish, limiting individual initiatives; thus, a Liberal temptation to pursue freedom can cause its very loss.

On the other hand, an extreme absence of control over the economy tends to lead to the growth of huge corporations with enough power to limit or even eliminate competition from other firms.  This result of such "free market" activity can thus lead to the economic system's losing the capacity to respond to new opportunities "freely" and therefore to weaken. 

In both instances, extremism leads to self-defeat.

6

When the Conservative says he values freedom, it may seem to Liberals that he is lying, because concentration of wealth in the hands of the few constrains the potential freedom of most individuals.  But this Liberal reaction would indicate a misunderstanding of the Conservative's intent.

Two things are worth pointing out here about the sort of freedom the Conservative pursues most aggressively.  (1) The "freedom" the Conservative seeks lies exclusively in the economic realm, not in the moral realm, where restraints of individual freedom are in fact the goal.  (2) And within the economic realm for the Conservative, the "freedom" he values is, in particular, freedom from control over financial dealings and economic initiatives, which control he would call "government interference."

While the Liberal would seek to manage the economy in order to preserve the economic opportunities of the most people possible, the Conservative would seek to free those established in economic power from public restraint in order to generate as much new wealth as possible.

In this realm too, however, all but extremists - whether Liberal or Conservative - recognize the value of both opposing goals.  The sensible Liberal understands the need for the economy to operate with enough freedom from interference to insure continuing prosperity.  The Conservative - except for extremists - understands how economic opportunity must be distributed widely enough to maximize creativity and innovation which are necessary for the economy to grow as efficiently as possible.

Once again, the difference between these two groups lies more in where they find the right balance between opposing values than in single-minded pursuit of one goal or the other.

7

I have referred to the apparent anomaly of today's Libertarians' tending to align themselves with Conservatives, rather than with Liberals who - like them - value freedom above other social ideals.  This often does seem contradictory.

Like the Liberal, the Libertarian wishes to preserve the individual's ability to choose his or her own actions.  Like the Conservative, the Libertarian opposes the Liberal's initiatives to control or manage the actions of the few, in order to maintain a relative amount of economic opportunity among the many.  Such management, according to the Libertarian, would constrain some individuals' ability to do as they please.  This should not be done, even if some individuals choose to consolidate their individual economic power, which may constrain the economic opportunity of many, or to pursue economic behaviors that may put the whole economy at risk.

Within the economic realm, maximum freedom for the "superior" individual - i.e. the more powerful individual - is the Libertarian's goal.  As in the other groups, of course, there are some extremists among Liberetarians who do not seem to value at all the freedom of most individuals - including the less powerful and the powerless - from the bondage of ignorance, poor health, and poverty.

Seeking to free some individuals from economic restraint, even at the risk of reducing the freedom of most people, is more important to Libertarians than other economic considerations.

8

Although it is complex, we can see that this political and economic position of the Libertarian does have a certrain logic.  It does not seem to make sense, however, for Libertarians to align themselves with Conservatives on social and moral issues. 


In the moral realm one would think they would share with Liberals the greater emphasis on maintaining the individual's ability to choose freely than on safeguarding traditional moral restraints, even when the free choice does not threaten harm to others (as in gay marriage, for instance).  Since Libertarians claim to value individual liberty above all, it would seem consistent for them to align themselves with the Liberals.

9

Now more than ever, it seems, we must beware of political, economic, and even religious leaders who seek to confuse us about their priorities among values or who are themselves confused about what their values actually are or about the consequences of the actions they desire.

One might even say that it sometimes seems that we have Conservative leaders "pretending" to uphold liberal values or Liberals "pretending" to uphold conservative values.

The debate over budget deficits may provide some examples of this appearance of hypocrisy.  Liberal leaders maintain that they are committed to reducing the now-habitual custom of the federal government's spending more than it takes in.  Such an effort would be to pursue a conservative goal. 

Liberals, however, would point out that reducing the annual and the accumulated deficit is of high importance right now because of our unusual current circumstances.  And they would further point out that even today, for them reducing the debt is still not more important than establishing and maintaining as equal as possible a degree opportunity for all to be economically independent.  They would go so far as to say that, in order to provide for the greatest degree of freedom from want and from restraint of the majority's pursuing their own economic interests, the deficit should be reduced by somewhat increasing the taxes paid by the richest few.  Their pursuit of budget balance and reduction of a smaller debt is not inconsistent with their core economic values.

Conservative leaders, on the other hand, maintain that they are committed to reducing the level of unemployment in order to serve the economic interests of the many.  Such an effort would be to pursue a liberal goal.

10

Observers of Conservatives, however, would point out that they are vehemently opposed to allowing to expire the recently-established tax reductions on the richest few, even though to renew them will make it much harder to achieve the goal of budget balance.  They are of course also willing to sacrifice some supports of the majority in making progress toward balancing the budget.  Protecting the interests of the most economically powerful at the sacrifice of the lesser economic power of the many is consistent with the Conservative value of freeing the wealthy from government restraint so that the fast accumulation of wealth may continue as much as possible. 

Balancing the budget is important for Conservatives and Liberals alike - in itself a conservative goal - but Conservatives place even more importance on protecting the interests of the rich just as Liberals place even more importance on sharing economic independence as broadly as possible.

Both groups are behaving consistently with the core values that distinguish them from each other.

***

Dad Learns About His Father

***

1

The hotel room's telephone rang after he'd returned from dinner.

"Hello?"

"Is this Dr. Derrick?"

"Yes!"

"The same Dr. Derrick giving a speech at the University tomorrow, who was mentioned in the newspaper today?"

"The very same."

"I think your father was Warren N. Derrick.  Is that true?"

"Well, yes, that was his name. The 'N' was for Nathaniel."

"My name is Phyllis Anderson Derrick.  Your father was my second husband.  I was his third wife.  He died here in 1950.  We were married in 1941."

"Oh.  Yes?"

"I just thought you would want to know.  He is buried in the Pinewoods Cemetery here.  He talked about you, and your brother.  I don't know how but he knew that you were at the University in Austin... And he talked about you with pride and hoped your mother and his two boys had gotten along all right."

"Actually, she died when I was thirteen years old.  My brother Warren Nolan Derrick was fifteen.  We were orphans at that point."

"Ah, he didn't say anything about that."

"I'm afraid I will be leaving right after my talk tomorrow..."

"I just thought you ought to know.  So, now I have told you...  So, goodbye then."

She hung up while he was still saying, "And goodbye to you too."

2

Dad told me about this conversation from 1965 or so several months afterwards, when I was home on a two-week vacation a year or so after I'd graduated from college.  Although I have made up the words, the gist of it was just what he reported it to me. 

He'd never seemed comfortable talking about his father, and he didn't now either.

"You never met him, did you, your father?"

"Just the one time, when I was six.  Haven't I told you about that?"

"No."

"He showed up one day in 1910 before our mother had gotten us off to school and before she'd left for work.  He wanted to take us with him for that morning, before his trade conference was going to start in the city adjacent to ours.  By that time, he was some kind of officer in the professional organization having the conference."

"Did you go with him?"

"I remember that he took your uncle Warren and me to a big barber shop in the next city.  He bought each of us a manicure.  The only one I ever had.  That's all I remember."

"And he had left your family just after you were born?"

"Yes.  We never heard from him except that one time...  And he evidently ended up in this big city way up in the Northwest."

That was the end of that conversation.

3

Four or five years later, Dad retired from his University job.  I had gotten married, and was living near the coast in the mid-Atlantic region.  Dad wrote us that he and Mom were planning a trip to the city on the Atlantic coast 600 miles to the south of us, where his mother had told him he was born, just a few months before she and the two sons moved out to Texas about 1905 where his father had found a good job.

As far as I knew, for the first time in his life, after retiring Dad had become interested in learning about his origins.  He well remembered his grandmother, who'd lived with the family all during his childhood until she died a year before his Mom.  And from her he knew the name of his grandfather.  But that was just about all.

Dad wrote to ask us to join Mom and him in his birth city.  We worked out the dates when we could join them.

When we arrived, Mom and Dad had already spent a couple of days looking for records.  One thing Dad had tried was to just look up "Derrick" in the phone book.  He called the first five or six listed there (there were at least a dozen).  Dad had a Texas accent, but it was certainly that of a white Texan.  Everyone on the phone said right away there was no chance they were related.  Dad figured they just didn't want to be bothered by a distant cousin whom they had never heard of.

His last call was different.  The woman who answered seemed very pleasant - keep in mind this was deep in the Old South - so he was able to pose a question, when she positively said, like all the rest, that he and she were not related.

"You know, ma'am," he said, "I've called a lot of folks here in town with my last name and everyone seems to know without even thinking that we're not related.  I'm wondering why that is."

"Honey," she said with a good humor, "we is all colored folks!"

Dad and she had a good laugh together, and he stopped making those calls.

4

They'd had some success looking through the records in the local historical society.  He found his parents' 1900 marriage listed in an index of marriages in the state, and there was even a clue where the wedding had taken place.

While Mom and my wife went back to the historical society to look through other records, Dad and I went to the church downtown, where his parents had apparently gotten married.  That seemed to be the most likely place to find a formal record.

And sure enough, after we'd hung around in this church by ourselves for a while, a member of the staff asked if he could help... and they did have records from 1900.  We looked together.  Yes, there was the record in a large old book.  Dad arranged to have what he called a "photostatic" copy made and sent to him at home.

Flushed with this success, we went to join the others at the historical society, where they were looking through some old city directories, which list the names of current residents, their home addresses, and their occupations.  With help from the staff, they'd found a listing from 1900.  Dad's mother and father were living with his grandmother on Henry Street.  Dad's grandfather had been a "ship's carpenter."  Dad's father was described as a "ruler" at a bookbindery, and his mother was said to be a "seamstress."

This kind of directory lists names alphabetically, but you can then look up the address to learn what other streets are nearby and whether or not there were other residents in the same building, as in a boarding house, for instance.  Grandma had apparently owned a single-family home, which was at the corner of their street and another, which was also named - Montgomery.  (Before my wife and I left to return home, we all drove by this location.)

Dad's grandfather was not listed in the 1901 city directory, though the others were, at the same address.  He seemed to have died by then.

There was an old cemetery right downtown, not far from the wedding church, so we all tramped around there too, looking at grave markers.  It turned out those buried there were all from the 18th century!  But back at the historical society, there were indexes of those buried in the other various old cemeteries. 

We had to leave Mom and Dad at that point.  Their own plan was to go down to the Florida coast to see if they could find traces of Dad's father's family.  He vaguely remembered his mother saying that his father had been living there before moving a little to the north.

5

Six or eight months later, Dad had gotten me an invitation to give a talk to a professional organization there in my hometown.  Just by coincidence, I suppose, while I was there a small package came in the mail.

Mom had written after they'd returned from their family history tour that while in northern Florida, somebody at the historical society there had put Dad in touch with a woman named Derrick about their age.  She turned out to be the widow of one of Dad's relatives...

Not from his father's parents, but from his father's second marriage.

Kellie Cochran Derrick had married Dad's half-brother, who after a brief career in vaudeville in the 1920s had settled down in Florida.  By the way, her husband's name was Warren Robert Derrick.  Mom had written about how pleasant Kellie was and how graciously she had treated them at her little home.  She was a little deaf, if I remember correctly.

The letter with the package started out something like this:  "I appreciated getting your Thank You note a while back.  I enjoyed our visit too, very much.  I should have given you these things then, but I wanted to think about it first."

6

Inside the little box were various items from Dad's father, which his son - Kellie's husband, the other Warren "junior" - had saved.

Among the items were two photographs of a very young Warren Nathaniel in an army uniform from about 1898.  On the back, apparently in Dad's father's handwriting, his unit was identified as a Florida volunteer regiment.

Most items were related to the guy's career, including a photograph on a campaign flyer of him as candidate in 1920-something for the presidency of his "international" union.  Another was a photo of him in a hotel lobby next to a palm tree dated the same (on the back).  There was also a nice pocket watch engraved, "Warren N. Derrick, President, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, 1919 to 1925."

Finally, there was a gold-plated cane handle, also inscribed as a gift of the union.
Mother gave me these things after Dad's death in 1980.  She indicated that Dad had not seemed very interested in this memorabilia, although she'd had the handle mounted on a plain wooden cane.

7

One other thing:  at some point (I don't remember when), Dad told me that, even before the encounter with Kellie, he had known that his half-brother Warren had been in vaudeville, with his older sister, in a song-and-dance act.  He had the impression they'd been successful enough to travel around performing for several years. 

They must have started young, because their mother had traveled with them.  Dad's father and she had divorced in the early '20s.

While in college in central Texas in 1923 or '24, Dad had somehow seen a notice of a vaudeville show scheduled for a few days in the big city of San Antonio.  Among the performers listed were "Bob and Betty Derrick."  It;s not a common name, of course, and Dad knew nothing of any relatives, so...

He took a bus to San Antonio and managed to make contact with these other Derricks.  Yes, their father was Warren Nathaniel Derrick.  Their mother, his second wife, was with them.  Dad went to their performances that afternoon and evening and spent the time in-between with them.  He had an old photograph of him, "Bob and Betty," and their mother Mary crowded around a park bench near the Alamo.

It had apparently been a pleasant interaction, but they did not communicate again.

8

My mother absolutely believed in Heaven, where loved ones are reunited for all time.  Dad understood that such a belief brought strength to many in times of trouble as well as motivating many toward good values including social and moral responsibility, self-discipline, hard work, and - above all - kindness to others.

In my mother's Heaven, Mother and Dad are together again now and forever, along with her parents "Dad" and "Muddy" (Ben and Myrtle), and Dad's mother, grandmother, and brother.

Warren Nathaniel Derrick, his father, is not with them.

***

Wise Sayings 4 from Ron Lucius

***

Some say, Through our government, let us spend as little as possible, keeping taxes to a minimum.

Others say, Through our government, let us spend as much as we can afford, long-term, to meet our social needs.



Some say, Let us provide as much as possible for ourselves, keeping our own taxes as low as possible, providing for others as little as we can get away with.

Others say, Let us provide for all of us as much as we can.



Some say, It’s good for all of us to get as much as we can for ourselves, letting others get as much as they can for themselves.

Others say, It’s good for us to be satisfied with having enough for ourselves, trying to make sure that everyone has enough to get along.



Who’s right?

(Who’s left?)


……………………………………………………………………Ron Lucius




***

Story: A Very Hard Year

***

1

August 25, 2001

2001 was altogether a very tough year for me, he wrote, as though the year was already over. But he marked out altogether. That was better, more direct. He marked out very, and then for me.  The opening sentence in his "Memoirette" had become:

2001 was a tough year.

That's a lot better, he thought. Then, he went on:

 First, it was just a little fainting spell.

That seemed okay too, so he launched in.

After the first of the year, like most recent years I went down south to visit my aging mother. This time, since both children had grown up and moved away, my wife A----- went with me that time.


For months, I'd been feeling what I now know were symptoms of my condition. I had noticed at work that I didn't feel right when walking back from lunch. When I had to climb up a flight of stairs, I felt worse. My vision was disturbed, for instance. Everything looked as though it was lit in a painfully bright light ("photo-sensitive," they call it). I wasn't exactly out of breath, but my legs were weak - once in a while actually shaking uncontrollably for a minute or two.

The odd thing was, Although I felt strange and bad, I didn't feel like I was going to fall or black out. And I could both think and talk normally. When my symptoms were worst, sometimes it happened that I would cross paths with a colleague, and we would chat just as though everything were normal... As I imagine they thought it was. I do remember one time when someone said, "Are you all right? You look a little pale." I just said I had to catch my breath after coming up the stairs too fast.

And, sure enough, after a few minutes I could go along as usual.

He took a break, then read what he had written. That's okay, he thought. But why was he bothering to do this, just because his daughter suggested he write it down? He decided he'd come back to it later.

2

August 26, 2001

So, while I was at home, my childhood home, A----- and I took Mother to church on Sunday. Maybe it was a little stuffy in the sanctuary, I don't know. But once when we all stood up to sing a hymn, I sat back down again, hard. I'd actually passed out for just a second. I got right back up.


Mother didn't seem to notice, but A----- certainly did. "What happened?" she said with some concern.


Back home the routine started up again normally. I had gone to a cardiologist a year earlier, just for a routine EKG. There was something I liked about the doctor. But I wasn't thinking of medical help after the sanctuary incident. I was getting older, of course, working hard and sometimes facing stressful work situations, some of which lasted for as long as a week...


I couldn't help noticing that it was often after a working lunch that I had my light-sensitive, short of breath, weak legged episode. It was easy to find plausible causes of my little symptoms.

3

He had written three or four paragraphs all at once. He read it over and didn't see anything to change and was ready to move on. All without a break too.

Next, it was one night when I got up to go the bathroom. It was in the dead of night, say around 2 or 3 a.m. Rather than turn on the light, in the middle of the night I always sat down on the toilet. Still do, in fact.

No. He marked out the last two sentences and added this one.

In the middle of the night, I always sit down on the toilet, he wrote instead.


When I had finished, flushed and all, I naturally stood up and started moving toward the door. Next thing I knew, A----- was trying to pick up my head, which was tangled in the shower curtain where I had fallen.

"You fainted!" she said. "Did you hurt yourself?"

I hadn't, as far as I could tell. But I sure had lost consciousness for a minute or two. It was more embarrassing than damaging, but still...

The next morning, A----- and I decided I should go back to the cardiologist. Or maybe, just by coincidence, I had a follow-up or check-up already scheduled, I can't remember. But anyway, we went in to see Dr. S----- a few days later.

He checked me out, listened not just to my heart but also to what we said, seeming to know instinctively that A----- was providing the most useful information. He set up a hospital test or two - an ultrasound of my heart, for instance - but didn't seem particularly concerned.

When A----- told him of the fainting in church, he said: "You know, we all do that!"

4

Aug 27, '01

All right, he thought.  Where should he pick up the story now?  He tried to recall, Were there some other warning signs?  There must have been, but - he told himself - Get on with it!

We had a little break in the workload at the office in early April, so I took a couple of days off, taking in effect a four-day weekend. A----- and I had been looking for a chance of something like that so that - new for spring - we could fix up and rearrange some things in the house. I can't remember what all was involved.  Seems like there was stripping and replacing wallpaper at an early point.

That's it.  Keep going; it's just memory now.  Vivid memories at that.


Then, on the Saturday of that weekend, two days before I was planning to go back into the office, we'd been talking about updating our downstairs t.v. We found an appropriate replacement on Friday afternoon and didn't have too much trouble swapping it out with the old one in the den. Years before, we'd put a new portable inside a neat-looking wood console we'd had since we were first married, so that was the one we were swapping out. The new one eventually did go into the narrow space, and we got it all hooked up to a new DVD/VCR player we had bought only a few months earlier.

So far, so good, he was thinking.

So far, so good.

The next step in the spring re-do was to put a t.v. upstairs too, where we'd never had one. The little old one we were taking out of the old console would be just right. We even had an old wheeled t.v. table we'd been keeping in the attic for eons.


Right after lunch, we couldn't help ourselves, we just had to get the portable upstairs onto the new-old table. We talked about it and decided that A----- would take the one side while climbing backwards up the stairs, which meant that I was moving straight ahead, carrying a little bit more of the weight. We were already not young anymore, you know?


5

So that, next thing you knew, there was A----- climbing steadily backwards up the stairs holding up her side, while I labored along unsteadily behind, going forward.  I was especially concerned to avoid scratching either the banister on the left or the stairwell wall on the right.

Up we went, step by step, talking to each other to be sure the other one was under control and was plodding along at the same steady pace.  And then, after a minute, there we were.  A----- had positioned the t.v. stand with the casters a little beyond the top step of the stairs.  We set the little RCA down, just as we'd planned.  Done!

6

A couple of years ago, right after the children had moved out on their own, we'd made a creature-comfort kind of purchase - quite uncharacteristic of us - in the form of a recliner chair.  It was just a couple of steps away.

After setting the little t.v. down, I spotted that chair and said cheerily to A----- words to the effect that I thought I would just sit down for a minute.

The next thing I knew A----- was pounding on my chest, peering up critically into my face, while holding the phone receiver to her ear.  Fortunately, it had a long chord; we don't have a cell phone.

"Is that 911?" I asked sweetly.

She continued talking into the telephone, but she nodded it was indeed 911.

"Tell them I'm fine," I said.  And then I blacked out again.

When I came to, Sheila was still holding the telephone.  She told me she had to go downstairs to let the EMT folks in.  I told her pleasantly to go right ahead.

The heavy steps of the men carrying their paraphernalia boomed up the stairs toward me, and then one of them asked heartily, "Well, how are we feeling?"

I said comfortably that I was feeling okay, no chest pain or anything, no headache, I could move everything.  He took my blood pressure and listened to my heartbeat.  "But I think I lost consciousness for a second or two."

A----- spoke up.

While they carried me down the stairs, I was hoping the stretcher didn't scratch the banister or the wall.

While folks were scurrying around me in the emergency room, as A----- was registering me at the desk outside, I was feeling kind of cozy and sleepy, but alert.  I answered everyone's questions.

After A----- had arrived at my bedside, the staff cardiologist appeared, studied the chart and had a conversation with A-----, and pretty soon I was admitted and taken up to a semi-private room (no one else was there).  I think a nurse hooked me up to a heart monitor so that an alarm would sound at her desk in the hall if my poor old thing stopped beating, but I was looking at the rest of Saturday and all day Sunday with nothing to do but lie there, because of course they couldn't run any tests until Monday.

7

(By this point, he couldn't have stopped if he'd wanted to.)

A whole battery of tests indeed ensued over the first two or three days of the next week, including a CAT scan of my head.  A neurologist showed up shortly afterwards and said I had a normal brain and my little episode - that's what they called these little fainting spells - my episode could not have been caused neurologically.

Other tests showed I had no arterial sclerosis, no blockages, had had no heart attack...  When Dr. S----- came by after having reviewed all these results, he said I had a condition sometimes called "Athlete's Heart" (a surprising, if flattering discovery), where the heart under exertion sometimes beats so strongly that just about all the blood in the whole heart chamber is pushed out and not enough time is left before the next too-strong beat for the chamber to fill up again.  As a result, not enough blood reaches my brain, and... Well, I knew the rest.

Eating causes exertion by itself, for digestion, so other exertion like walking uphill, or climbing up stairs, or lugging a somewhat heavy object was exertion on the heart too, for muscular exercise.

The upshot was that I should go to another hospital where they would implant a pacemaker in my chest.  This little machine could help keep my heart from beating so fast that the heart chamber wouldn't fill up before the next beat came along.

And I would arrive at the other place Friday afternoon, just in time to spend the weekend.

8

Aug 28, '01

A week or so later when A----- and I returned home from the other hospital 90 miles away, we discussed the experience we'd been through.  Over there our expectation from Dr. S-----'s team that I would be having a pacemaker implanted was re-enforced by a handout given us by the surgeon's team explaining what a pacemaker was, what a pacemaker was designed to do, and how to take care of a pacemaker.  (One thing I learned, for example, was that the magnetism in those doorways you have to go through at libraries and stores is too weak to cause any problem, while the airport ones are too strong.)  I had all weekend to study the handout on pacemakers.

So it was a surprise when I was on the gurney going into the operating room and the man who would do the actual surgery, whom I had not met before, talked instead of implanting a defibrillator. 

I said "Whoa, wait a minute.  I was told to expect a pacemaker."  The surgeon explained whythe defibrillator was required for a condition like mine. It did seem like a higher level of security, I thought, but was it more than necessary?  (I later have wondered how necessary even the pacemaker is.) 

I told them to page A---- in the lunchroom so that we could make the decision together.  This new guy wasn't happy at all but went away to do so.  In 20 minutes he came back and said my wife hadn't answered the page, so I would either have to go ahead or go back to the room and hope it wouldn't be too many days before a new opening in the operating room could be scheduled.  I said to go ahead.

When we got home, then, we looked over the spot near my left shoulder where the darn thing had been implanted.  It bulged out a lot and was a little crooked.  That didn't seem right, but apparently it was working and I seemed to be healing normally.

The health insurance at my job paid for all this.  That defibrillator - the little instrument itself - had cost $40,000.

9

After five days or so, I noticed that my left arm and hand were a little red.  The day after that there was a little swelling too.  A----- called Dr. S-----'s nurse, who set up an appointment for an ultrasound on my arm for the next day.  That took only a few minutes.  Looking back, I can realize now that there was a little more meaning than there usually is in the way the technician said that my doctor would be contacting me soon.

...Because the phone rang just as we walked in the door getting back from the test.  Dr. S-----'s nurse (W----), said could I please come right in.  It seemed routine, so A----- stayed home.

I checked in at the desk as usual at the office, but instead of being able to sit down comfortably and glance at a magazine or too, W---- came out and said right up close to my face that I needed to start taking a blood-thinner right away.  She said she would call in the prescription to my drug store right then and I should go get it and take the first pill before leaving the store.

I had a blood clot near my left bicep, another little blow.  With the thinner and all, though, the clot seemed to dissolve and disappear over the next few days.  When I went in for a check-up the next week, Dr. S----- explained that he'd been planning to prescribe a blood thinner anyway because when someone's heart starts beating too hard, a little blood could pool up for a few seconds in the bottom on the heart chamber, so it was good to slow down any possible clotting process.

Anyway, that was the beginning of a new regime of various drugs that I will be taking from now on: one to help relax my heart and at the same time to keep my blood pressure down, the blood thinner, and another drug to help the heart beat regularly without having to engage the pacemaker part of the defibrillator.

My work day had to change a little too, since I was to start taking a brief little nap everyday after lunch... to avoid muscular exertion after eating.  At least most of it makes sense, and after a month or so, I starting feeling pretty good.  In fact, I've been feeling better than I had in years!

10

8/29/01

Then, he couldn't help but remember, there was the other surprise.
Then came the final surprise.

I still talked with my mother down south every weekend on the phone, but of course I hadn't shared anything with her about all this health upset.  She was still very much herself, but her dementia had progressed enough a year and a half ago or so that I couldn't rely on her own reports of how she herself was doing.  A year ago, the family had arranged for Mother to have care-givers looking after her in the daytime, but A----- and I realized that we would have to be going down a little more often to see how she was doing for ourselves.

She was delighted in early May when I told her we would be dropping by again in a few days.

There had been some new developments before our last visit (when I had fainted for a second at church).  The first was about eating.  Mother had always had a good appetite.  A fine cook herself, she enjoyed eating and had to watch her weight.  She could really do much cooking now - it wasn't safe - and it wasn't surprising to observe that the meals care-givers prepared for her seemed less appealing to her than meals she'd usually had. 

But it turned out to be more than that.

She and Dad had found a particular restaurant where they were really comfortable, and Mother had continued to go there, with friends or family, two or three times a month. Over the last three or four years, whenever A----- and I had visited, it was a settled question that we would take Mother to L---'s for dinner.  She knew the menu up and down, even now, and could pick out just what she wanted.  Only, by last January, she seemed more to be just going through the motions and just picked at her food.

The meals A---- had fixed for us during that two-day visit were just Mother's kind of thing, and healthy too, but she'd been much more interested in having ice cream afterwards than anything.  Cookies were not bad either.  The zest for food had dwindled substantially, it was clear.

Mother had seemed more tired than usual too, sleeping late in the mornings - totally new for her - and lying down on her bed for long naps in the early afternoon.  She had been troubled by insomnia for a long time after Dad died in 1980, and by her bed she still had a radio and an old cassette player with tapes of old radio shows.  But there was no insomnia anymore, as we'd learned before January.

She wouldn't have missed Sunday church, of course, but she hadn't wanted to visit with all the friendly folks who hung around after the service, as she had done even as long as I could remember.

She just no longer seemed to be the perky, engaged little old lady she had been.

11

8/30/01

Before we went down in June, then, the care manager let me know that Mother's doctor was a little concerned about a partial blockage in her bowel, and an appointment had been set up for a cancer specialist in that first week of the month.  We had been planning on visiting soon anyway, so we timed it so we could take her to this new doctor.

He was a younger man than I had expected in a gerontologist, soft-spoken.  It turned out he had the results of a lot of tests, including an MRI, I guess.  Anyway, he took Mother into a private examination room to check her out and ask her some questions.  A curious thing about Mother's intellectual state was that she couldn't possibly generalize as to her overall condition, but as accurately as ever she could tell you what she was feeling at the moment.  "Does your back hurt?" "Do you feel tired?"  "Do you have a headache?"  That kind of question she could answer fine.

They weren't gone long.  Then the doctor asked A----- to sit with Mother while he and I could "get acquainted."

Inside his private office, he showed me on a screen the picture of Mother's colon (he said, you know, not that I would know on my own).  He pointed out a shadowy blob and said if we had it biopsied, we could tell if it was cancer.  His manner indicated that wasn't the best option.

The family had agreed years before that, as I believe this doctor knew, that Mother had lived a long, good life and that none of us would want to prolong it into worry, suffering, expense (Mother was very frugal!)... particularly as her mind slipped away.

I asked What if we didn't have the biopsy?

"If I'm right, he said, and the mass is malignant, then your Mother will decline either rapidly or slowly.  We would minimize her discomfort, with this in the colon, and I can alert Hospice now, if you want me to."

I told him to go ahead.  "So what'll come next?"

He explained that the Hospice people - with whom he worked often - had to have their own physician and nurse verify the situation before they would take on Mother's care.  They wouldn't intervene before in their judgment the end was six weeks or fewer away.

12

8/31/01

That was three months ago, he realized now, as he straightened up from the keyboard and monitor.  His wife and he had been home after the funeral now about a week.  He had returned to work only a few days after that talk with his mother's doctor.  Hospice had started in after only a week or so.  Mother had declined very slowly, not going permanantly to her bed until the last week.

His daughter told him that someone at work said their parents had learned that it helped the grieving period significantly to write something down.  Knowing her Dad, she had encouraged him to write the story.

"It's been a very hard year for you, Dad," she'd said.

13

9/1/01

I guess I won't try to recall the details of the funeral arrangements and all that.  Even though I knew it was for the best and was comfortable, even pleased, with the decisions we'd made about the Hospice care, her death still took a lot out of me.  And I dream now, almost every night, that I am me, an adult, but I live in my Mother's house.  So, I'm just worn out.

I'm the executor of the will.  The house will be on the market in a few weeks.  The process is complicated but - well - routine.

But it didn't seem quite right to...

But it doesn't seem quite right to just stop.  So here is a closing thought:

You never know what to expect.  I certainly didn't know I even had a heart problem back in January 2001.  It's now just the end of August, and I have a lot of maintenance drugs to take and a little machine silently working under my skin up in my chest.

Mother has had a quiet decline and is at peace, as they say.

So it's been tough, but one thing, It can't go on forever, can it?  I mean, so many unfortunate things have happened to me this year already, I feel confident - at least - we've had our quota of disasters for the whole year already!  You know?


***

National Debt: Let's Add Some Sense to the Debate (essay)

***

1

I heard one of the new Congressmen say recently, "We don't have a revenue problem.  We have a spending problem!"  He was very certain about that.  I have heard other national leaders interviewed saying much the same thing, just as emphatically.


What I have not heard is on what basis this firm conviction is grounded.

2

It is true that we have a national debt of a size that is very rare for our country.  As a percentage of the U. S. Gross Domestic Product, our current debt is even higher than the national debts of many other developed countries such as Germany or Sweden.  Our normal, or expected level of national debt - it may be worth remembering - is quite a bit lower than those planned in other developed countries.

The size of our current debt could be a problem under certain circumstances, such as a reasonable chance of domestic inflation or international fear for the stability of the U. S. economy when compared with the economic stability of other developed nations. 

Neither of these circumstances faces us today.  The U. S. economy is still the largest and most trusted in the world, even though the worldwide Great Recession has caused significant economic problems here as in other countries. 

And far from there being reasonable fear of inflation in our country, it is generally agreed that we have only recently escaped the danger of deflation, falling prices rather than falling value in the dollar.  In other words, the probability of the opposite of inflation - as far as we can tell - is greater than the likelihood of inflation.

Still, since either condition could possibly become a reality at some time in the future, it is prudent to keep the amount we add to the current national debt as small as possible.

3

Additions to the national debt occur when current government spending exceeds government revenues.  In a controlled capitalistic economy such as our own, government revenues come from federal taxes, not from corporations owned by the government. 

Adjusted for normal inflation over the years, our government's revenues today are considerably lower than they have been in the past because of the many reductions in federal taxes over the last 30 years.  Tax revenues have fallen especially because of the reduction of taxes on the wealthy, since the wealthy have been counted on to pay the largest share of federal taxes for 100 years or so, as they do in the other developed countries.  Such taxing is also a basic feature of modern capitalism.

And, most obviously, our tax revenues are significantly lower in 2011 because of the Great Recession of 2008-2010, from which we have just begun to recover.  The long-term unemployed pay little income tax, if any.  Businesses earning fewer dollars than in the recent past pay less tax too; those that are bankrupt may pay none. 

Even adjusted for inflation, government spending today is half the percentage of GDP of what it was in 1946.  It is below its level of the mid-1950s, a period cited as highly prosperous for our country.  The level of national debt today is comparable to what it was 20 years ago. 

The level of the national debt clearly is not a matter of urgent concern, especially when compared to the high rate of unemployment and the stagnant or falling income of 75% or 80% of Americans.

4

There may be some spending problems that need to be addressed.  However, the national debt is less a cause for worry than the fragile condition of the economy or the injustice of the current tax system.


***

Poem: Roman Vista

***

He stands on the roof, on the tall windblown tower
………overlooking the city--
Gazing past the tiled roofs clustered near beneath Him,
Past the brown, green, and black shingles covering the low
………and cool residences imbedded in the cedary hills
………forming a bowl to cradle His tower under Him,
Past the white cotton clouds, through the azure liquid sky,
………beyond the sun and the heavens, into nowhere.

He smiles and the sun glows warmly,
Sending fire into all natural things--
………tree, bush, dog, or man and woman--
Inducing all who wake or ever stirred on earth to peace--
………to peaceful, hot oblivion.

He laughs and the clouds start to move,
Enshrouding themselves
………with black violet,
Encircling the sun, shutting out its light
………but not its soporific heat.

He roars, and thunder stumbles out from behind the hills
………and careens through the clouds,
Smashing the peace with heavy, loud, bootsteps
………that roll back and forth in the hills' cradles.

A tear builds in His eye, larger, until it bleeds
……….down His soft cheek, and the rains
Begin to stroke the fertile soil,
Splashing the gutters with a coolish clearness
………restoring peace once more.

He sobs, and the cool of the rain turns to heat,
Boiling the tile-covered roofs
………and the trees
...........and everything beneath Him
………with fever.

He sobs again and the clear waters
………turn to filth,
Coating everything touched by the searing rain
………with a blistering, sticky mud.

He cries on and on, and the rain turns to fire
           as it pounds the earth,
Kindling the city, the trees,
           the roofs, the streets, the gutters,
          even His own tower
With flames that shoot up
          into the cotton clouds,
Billowing smoke to the liquid sky.

Finding his violin, still crying,
He plays wild songs
         into the fire and ash,
Bowing and laughing at the same time
         until the whole city is destroyed
         and even His tower is steaming
Black rubble
         beneath the quietly smiling sun.

***

Deductions and Conclusions (from Essays)

***

1. Founding Principles

… American culture grows out of the dual between our great intellectual, legal, and social heritage and our practical desire to overcome real, material dangers and risks.
                                                          The Secrets of American Success 2/12/10

The greatest thing about our great nation is the ideals upon which it was founded. If we are to continue America’s noble traditions and live up to our great mission in the world and in human history, we must do everything in our power to nurture, sustain, and pursue our essential values. Highly concentrated wealth and power threatens all that we hold most dear in the United States of America: peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty and justice for all.
                    The “Too Big to Fail” Discussion: the National Interest 4/18/10

As issues arise in the public debate, it seems obvious that [the] founding principles [in the Preamble to the Constitution] should be the first considerations in our minds as we attempt to decide where we stand. We should not argue for a proposal, that is, merely because it "seems right" to us at the time. The prohibition against one person's freedom impinging on that of another must be considered as well. What is obviously right from my point of view is not necessarily what seems right from another's perspective; I do not have the right to impose my belief on others, unless my view of what is right also serves the national purpose as described in the Preamble.
                                               Present Implications of the Constitution 5/2/10

A political party that is based on these six freedoms – [freedom] from fear, want, force and violence, injustice, and unequal opportunity – and that actively, proudly, and aggressively pursues them would be one we could enthusiastically support.  Yet somehow, I am inclined to think that the actions of the party [claiming to be “based on freedom”] are not in fact founded on principles of freedom as I understand it, or at least not on freedom for all.
                                    Freedom in America: Who Cares? 5/9/2010

It is much more useful both for ourselves and particularly for our nation, or any nation, to think in terms of right and wrong, rather than in terms of good and evil. Avoiding the temptation to think of public issues as absolutes, like good vs. evil, is not just wordplay …; it is significant … as well as useful and valuable.

Between evil and good, there is no possibility of finding a middle ground, no possible agreement, no peace. If we think of behaviors in the contentious issues that divide us as moral or immoral, we are much more likely to be able to approach them rationally, without dogma, bias, or superstition, and with a practical chance to move toward understanding and accommodation of others’ opposing views and beliefs.
                                                       Beware of Evil (and of Good also) 1/25/10

We need … leaders and newscasters who are bold enough to tell us that the world we have to deal with is not simple and easy, but difficult and complicated. They can flatter our vanity by saying to us, “I know you would prefer to be moved, but it is more important for you to be informed.” But whether they flatter us or not, they need to appeal to our highest ideals and our highest abilities, our abilities to listen and learn, to seek the real truth rather than the “simple truth,” to seek to become fully informed and to think for ourselves.

If we continue to prefer simple platitudes to careful explanations, if we continue to prefer to have our leaders appeal to us through emotion rather than reason, we have little hope of adequately facing up to the hard realities surrounding us.
                                                                The Simple and the Complex 7/24/10

Since so many loud media voices today espouse the views fanatics are known to hold, and identify opponents of these views as enemies to be hated and attacked - though fanatics remain in the minority - they are mobilized to "defend the faith," and they can be unwittingly used to support the policies and actions that their leaders secretly pursue for personal gain and extension of their own power. And since they are convinced it is their duty to impose their views on others, fanatics are willing to use force and violence when necessary to do so, extending their leaders' control or at least influence over others.

Through intimidation and manipulation, fanatics can be led to espouse a cause that more reflective individuals - like the humane and rational Founding Fathers whom we all profess to venerate - would probably see as distinct from the fanatics' own cherished beliefs, seeking to force not only their adherents but all of us to follow their narrow dictates and in so doing to bring us under the control of leaders whose goals they do not accurately perceive.
                                                                          Dealing With Fanatics 6/20/10

Today, we can see honor systems driving unempowered and impoverished peoples, from the Middle East to Los Angeles (and all the other cities with powerful gangs), from Congo to New Guinea. A gang member may murder someone who is considered to have “disrespected” that individual, in other words to have wounded his honor. But such a system – or code – was still strong enough to tie our late eighteenth-century patriots together as they undertook their most treacherous endeavor in 1776.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were proud men seeking to establish a social system of just laws, bound to their cause by a real sense of their sacred honor.
                                                                   Pride, Revenge, and Honor 9/10/10

The cardinal American values are peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty, and justice for all. These values should be pursued, supported, and honored above all others. Actions that threaten or diminish them should be avoided or prohibited, vilified, or at least highly taxed. Public leaders praising these essential values should be supported; those whose decisions undermine them should be hounded out of their positions of influence.

These basic values must be kept foremost in our minds as we consider any proposed change in government. The size and forms of government as well as methods used to determine the size of each income-earner’s fair share of its funding should be decided not on some abstract or dogmatic principle about either the size of government or about the amount of taxes imposed on everyone; but about making government better and the tax system more just.
                            Too Much Government? Not Enough? Taxes? 7/15/2010

…The Constitution is the supreme law of our land. For us to belittle or deride its provision for equal civil rights to all citizens is unpatriotic and un-American, whether one is referring to the duties of the Judicial branch of the U. S. government or to the way we speak and write about each other.
                             The California Decision and Political Correctness 8/27/10

The question, then, about conservatives who claim they are champions of freedom is, "Who do they want to be free?" Libertines value only their own personal freedom to do as they please. Libertarians certainly value their own freedom, but also seem to think it would be good for everyone else to be free too, although how that could come about is unclear. Everyone with enough money, as produced by the current social order, which is dominated by rich global corporations, are those who conservatives seem to want to be free. Liberals, unlike libertines or libertarians, or even some conservatives, claim to be working to bring a significant degree of freedom to everyone (except perhaps to criminals who threaten both individuals and society).

The socially difficult issue of where the right balance is between the good of the individual and the good of society is exacerbated today by the morally difficult issue of to whom a significant degree of freedom should be extended.
                  Liberals, Libertarians, and Libertines: and Freedom 11/26/10

2. Government

As long as we are at war, in two distant lands, if we are to have good government in the United States of America, our government will need to be better funded than it is today. This would be true even if we had no corruption (such as paying unscrupulous corporations grossly inflated fees or winking at wealthy companies’ or individuals’ unwise or unprincipled actions).

Our government is under-funded. We do not want to take on more debt. Our only remaining alternative is to devise a raise in our taxes that the majority of Americans, despite our distrust and our desire for immediate gratification, can recognize as fair and just to all.

To fail to accept this conclusion, is to prevent our nation from moving forward, as we all want.
                                              Why We Don’t Want Higher Taxes 7/15/2010

Facing the indefinite continuation of both our time of war and our time of recession, our government – if it is responsible – will inevitably raise its expenditures beyond current levels; this is the greater good in our time. To finance this additional spending, we should consider a modest raise in the national debt and a modest increase in the taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
                                       In Times of War, Times of Recession 8/3/10

If the House [of Representatives] procedures favor the need for action a bit more than the protection of the minority’s opportunity to voice its views, more than standard parliamentary procedure; then the Senate procedure favors very significantly the minority power over the need for the whole body to take action. The result is that in our Congress, we do not have a proper balance between, on the one hand, the need to hear contrary opinions and on the other, the need (of all citizens) for Congress to take action.
                                                                      Let’s End This Debate! 2/4/10

The question of timing is very important in any form of dispute-resolution. …Also of critical importance is to avoid offering to give up something one desires too early in the process.

Doing so, even if what is given up is less important than what one gains, short-circuits the process which if allowed to take its course might allow limiting the final concession to only a portion of the valuable objective; whereas offering the major concession too early guarantees the loss of that desirable gain and – even worse – causes the negotiations to start with the assumption that the other side will make a minor concession, as a response to the offered bargain, and will go on to seek further concessions from the first party. The key in seeking compromise, as in resolving disputes through agreement or consensus, is to start by asking for everything one hopes to achieve and only then being willing to make compromises – first on minor objectives – only in return for significant concessions from the other side.
                                                          Compromise: Good? Bad? When? 2/4/10

It may not be a Constitutional matter, …but everyone professes to believe that only legal aptitude and experience matter in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. But the fact is that many Senators – and especially today, most Republican Senators - clearly don’t really believe this. Why lie about it?

Could it be that Senators recognize that a great majority of the electorate believes that neither the nomination nor the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice should be based primarily on partisan politics?
                                 Supreme Court Appointments and Politics 8/15/10

For all these reasons, it is difficult for large media outlets to focus their reports where they should: on what’s at stake in an election really, truly, and accurately, taking upon themselves responsibility for the facts they report.
                                                                     Elections and the Media 10/19/10

So, unless we want to grant corporations the right to vote - by using their resources to guarantee the election of only those who will do their bidding - then, we should push our representatives to pass a federal law saying that the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech applies not to "legal persons" but only to human individuals.
                                           Corporations Are Not People, Are They? 12/17/10
[repeat]
The greatest thing about our great nation is the ideals upon which it was founded. If we are to continue America’s noble traditions and live up to our great mission in the world and in human history, we must do everything in our power to nurture, sustain, and pursue our essential values. Highly concentrated wealth and power threatens all that we hold most dear in the United States of America: peace and prosperity, equality of opportunity, liberty and justice for all.
                    The “Too Big to Fail” Discussion: the National Interest 4/18/10

***