Planted

Life is refined for us
Our love made more complete
As the generations planted
Spring up about our feet

As the summer rains and solstice
Quench their peaking needs
We determine by time and distance
If sown among grasses or weeds

For by our hands all manner are planted
And they will reap what we have sown
Within them the seeds we've planted
Bearing fruit once they have grown

Sow therefore with caution
Plant your lessons with great care
For the harvest of your sowing
Is the burden they will bear

Be well,
Hucklebberry

(tip 'o the hat to UJ)

Hero

“Each one of them that heeds the call,
Veritably to the justice hall,
Ends not with a simple vote or tally
Reaching unto every street and alley.

Yet the pealing of the Liberty Bell
Makes low the gates of tyrant hell.
Ask I, ‘Who should ring it?’ and
None answers, save one outstretched hand.”

Be well,
Huckleberry

Tyrannus

A bit if meat, a draught of wine
A spoon of kingly porridge
Each rests within temporal reach
And within these we may forage

Tell me then which is not for me
From which I must refrain
Yank upon the steely bit
Place your hand upon the rein

You who say, “There be no God
And each man’s choices are his own”
Would make me pay another’s fees
And set yourself upon that throne

Can quorum pars enslave a man
By lot or plebiscite
Without risking rude awakenings
When the slaves don to unite?

Be well,
Huckleberry

Rush is Wrong on McCain, and Obama is Not Carter
The bitter-sweet and conflicted case for a John McCain Presidency

Much has been made regarding John McCain’s now seemingly inevitable ascendency to the Republican nomination. Rush Limbaugh—famously or infamously—has been calling for a Republican snub of the apparent nominee on Election Day. Other radio hosts and notable, right-leaning pundits have joined the call.

Their frustration is plainly seen and understood. John McCain has—by many accounts—flirted with the idea of switching parties. Thinking back a few years it is not hard to imagine that he would have jumped had the Democrat offer been a bit sweeter. Mr. McCain now firmly calls himself a conservative, evidently forgetting that we can review his sponsored legislation and spotty voting record on the Web at our leisure. Most recently the “Snowy-haired Senior Senator from Arizona” tried to jam a truly horrible illegal immigration bill through the system—all the while hurling “racist” labels at all who dared criticize it. These are not exactly shining Reagan-esque credentials. But see—this is part of the problem , which I will get to in a minute.

Rush (et al) seems to believe that we should abandon John McCain at the altar and hope for Democrat victory in November because:

• The economy—already on shaky ground—will be further hampered by the application of Liberal Dogma.
• General governmental affairs and the military will suffer mightily under Liberal rule and this fact will be recognized by the people.
• John McCain is NOT a Conservative and would therefore make many of the same mistakes as would either Hillary or Barak—so let the Democrats take the blame.
• This will all set the stage for a triumphant return of a truly Reagan-esque Conservative candidate four years hence who will then sweep in and bring the country back into prosperity…and here is the real point…just like Ronald Reagan did after Jimmy Carter’s abysmal one-term stand.

Historical Rhyme
To my mind, this argument is flawed. As Mark Twain famously said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Jimmy Carter was certainly elected in the wake of near universal discontent with Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon and the fallow state of the economy at the time (“Stagflation” had dragged on for a decade). President Carter—for all of his more charitable attributes—was, in most respects, a very poor President and leader in general. He was also a bit weak and uncharismatic. Ronald Reagan was truly a man of his time—right on economics (figuratively and literally), correct on Cold War conflicts, strong in character and personality, a solid leader…well, I could go on. His election marked a turning point for the country.

This Ain’t 1976
Today, our economy—though mildly imperiled—is many times more robust than it was in the late 1970’s. If we are destined for a Recession, most economists believe that it will be mild, and I tend to agree. Even if a Liberal Democrat is elected this time around it is likely the natural economic cycle will have ample opportunity to correct itself in four years time and position the incumbent as more hero than villain. Not that a Liberal would not do the economy harm, but Liberal policies take several years to manifest their growth-repressing inclinations.

Obama Has Never Been a Peanut Farmer
Further, the “Jimmy Carter” argument might have some standing if Hillary Clinton were the Democrat nominee. But this appears less and less likely the result. Hillary is no leader—she is an intimidator and controlling…well, let’s leave it at that. A Hillary Presidency would anger and frustrate almost as many Democrats as Republicans. But look at Barak Obama. He is polished, confident, well-spoken, carries almost no baggage that might hinder another candidate, and he can lead. He would lead towards Socialism and away from freedom—thus to our ultimate detriment—but he would lead well in those directions. An incumbent Barak Obama would be a formidable opponent in 2012. If Obama can keep his head about him and stay on track, I believe that he has the potential to professionally accomplish in office what the Democrat party had hoped to receive from Bill Clinton had Clinton been able to govern himself personally and professionally. This should make Conservatives lose sleep.

Give Me An “R”
Finally, we cannot gamble on the arrival of another Ronald Regan in four years. We are very fortunate to have had one of them in our lifetimes. To have a second is to bet against the house. We will have good men to be certain—our Conservative team is chock-full of good and intelligent men. But the too-soon sainted Ronald Reagan will be judged by history as one of the top four or five Presidents of the first quarter millennia of American History. Indeed, most lists already rank him rather high. The gap between “greatnesses” looks to be 40 to 50 years at a pop. We are not yet due for another. To expect any candidate to attain “Reagan-esqe” stature is to be unfair to that man.

With Jaw Clenched and Nose Held
John McCain is not my candidate. I feel personally (politically and philosophically) betrayed by him on several fronts and if he is elected we will have to keep an eye on him at all times (our RIGHT eye) to make sure that he does not create a legacy for himself that we would have to clean up later (amnesty, etc.). To his credit, he has remained stoically “correct” on completing the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting to the side all those who claim that he is “totally and completely” off the track.

To many, John McCain veritably defines the term “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) and I largely agree. But a R(h)INO trumps a Rabid Donkey when there are no Elephants in the room (or Bull-Moose, for that matter). I am not saying that we, as a philosophically-bound group, should grow accustomed to “settling.” Rather, I suggest that we should do a better job of finding and funding our candidates and that we will do better in the long run if we make “Reagan-ism” an objective instead of an entry-level qualification for our support.

Barring a shocking revelation or bizarre turn at the convention, I will cast my vote for John McCain on Election Day—but I may not feel good about it in the morning.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Rage, Thought I

"Rage, thought I to give to thee
Escaping when released by me
For who am I, that rage should I
Thus held within, a cage gone by

So vengence then, did I pursue
To lie within that cage for two
Taking back, what now I lack
Re-gift the favor of your attack

One way makes a slave of me
The other of both I and thee
Left only is that I forgive
So as a slave, I shall not live"

It is worth mentioning that the concepts behind this piece are self-focused--meaning that they apply when we seek our own satisfaction upon personal harm. He who seeks justice on behalf of others might justly be governed by concomitant philosophy.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Iraq War a “Clean Shoot,” and History Will Be The Judge

Recently, a regular contributor to http://www.phxnews.com/, Frosty Wooldridge, rehashed a bunch of old rhetoric regarding the Iraq conflict ( http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=55839 ). Mr. Wooldridge’s comments are rather easy to sum up: “Bush lied and people died.” Certainly he will find a clutch of readers who will eagerly agree with those sentiments—no matter how threadbare they have become. It’s not the first time ‘Ol Frosty has pitched in this way, and not likely the last. Go get ‘em Frosty. But I am sure that his stated dedication to Constitutional principles will compel him to allow a bit of reasoned decent.

Picture, If You Will
Picture, if you will, a darkened alley late at night in the most gang and crime ridden part of town. This night has been especially violent with innocent citizens and police officers mowed down by the senseless violence haunting the area. You are a cop on patrol and come upon a known felon in that darkened alley. He has a long rap sheet, has dodged prosecution on a series of heinous crimes, and has even taken a shot at you once or twice in the past. He is a known fellow gang member of another criminal who, just earlier today, committed a mass murder—and now he is crouching behind a dumpster in a darkened alley on your beat.

You pull over your squad car and call out to this man. He rises from his hiding space—his hands firmly stuffed in his pockets and talking tough. You draw your service weapon and order the man to show his hands—he does not. You call out to him, “show your hands and get on the ground or I’ll shoot.” Your orders are ignored and somewhere in the next few moments of shouting and furtive gestures—within the context of the suspicious bulge in his pocket, the dangerous neighborhood, and the reputation of the man who opposes you—an invisible line is crossed and you fire your weapon.

Which brings us to a few questions
If we are to judge the character and professionalism of this officer:

• Does it matter whether or not the suspect had an actual weapon at that time?
• What if he had a weapon that was jammed or broken—whether he knew it was broken or not?
• What if it was a toy weapon?
• What if he had a pocket full of bullets and no gun? Or a gun with no bullets?
• What if he had nothing but a pocket comb and a bit of loose change?
• What if….

The Investigation
The Internal Affairs Department will undoubtedly investigate this shooting and everything will be reviewed in the glaring morning light that filters though the blinds of third-story legal offices as a fresh cup of coffee leaves occasional brown rings on the dog-eared pages of official reports. But one hopes that—after the posturing, positioning, and appeals have dogged the system through the process—only one determination will come from the juries and peer reviews. This was a “clean shoot."

Can one imagine a darker or more violent alley than the Middle East or a homicidal sociopath more unpredictable than Saddam?

There are those who will attempt to parse this analogy to suit their own opinions, but an honest reading must at least give pause to partisan blanket statements, character assaults, and ad-hominem accusations. The fullness of history shall be the jury and final review of our seemingly graceless times and all of us who lived in them.

Be well,
Huckleberry

A Word from Huck – Syncretism

Syncretism, through strict definition, does not necessarily imply a negative. However, the root of the meaning we derive from the word is unquestionably negative. In a nut-shell, a syncretism is an effort to reconcile, merge, or balance disparate thoughts, philosophies, opinions, beliefs, and/or actions. Thus, the concept takes on significant gravity in philosophical, theological, and socio-political discourse.

In psychological terms, one might define Syncretism as “cognitive dissonance.” Rather, how one’s actions or thoughts are not in alignment with one’s beliefs, principles, or professions.

The term has often been used when describing various unifications of formerly conflicting factions or warring clans; however, I am not fond of this usage since a political or otherwise expedient negotiation of peace to fight a common foe or accomplish a common objective misses the point--in my opinion.

Bringing this nearly forgotten word quickly into modern times, we might suppose the following examples:

• One who believes that it is definitely wrong to steal; but that taking office supplies home for personal use is not really stealing.
• One who might vociferously profess that individual freedom is a higher calling; but may then actively support Socialization and the regulation of certain property rights.
• Another who might profess that telling lies and cheating are reprehensible; but fudging deductions on your tax return is acceptable.
• Consider the person who might believe that the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes is cruel and unusual punishment because human life is sacred; yet, actively supports abortion rights.
• And lest the reader think that I gore my neighbor’s oxen with an uneven hand—Let us also consider the faithful who cherish the freedom of religion guaranteed by our American Constitution; yet want only one theological position be taught in public schools. Hmmmmm….

All of these are examples of individuals or groups acting in some way syncretisticly to justify their disparate wants and thoughts—one is in conflict with the other. This is not to say that they need be so. In each case a legitimate argument might be made to unify the concepts on sound grounds. But I am relatively sure that this hard work of cognition has not yet been completed. Thus the syncretism persists.

There is much to consider in this....

[New Text Added October 11, 2007]

I am struck by the notion that much of our personal and societal anxiety is rooted in our in ability to reconcile our syncretisms.

• Marriages dissolve when love is tainted with by selfishness, narcissism, and solipsism.
• Obvious self-interest is trumped by rebellion.
• Future is disregarded at the alter of Now. One could argue that even the most preciousness of this Moment is forgotten by the sense of something even more immediately in mind and in another place.

As we are pulled and cajoled by other place, self, and now we end up floating in waters more uneven than mere relative-ness and subjectivity. That let's us off far too easy. Instead we drift through a life without firmament at all. Denying that laws and principles exist lest they be at any time or place inconvenient in the "then."

Blessed is the one who speaks, acts, and lives at one with himself and with God.

And still there is much more to consider in this....

Be well,
Huckleberry

Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Magic’ is a Trick of Craven Public Relations

I get it. My regular readers may note that—in addition to my contributions to this blog and other writings—I am a musician. No one tells me what to write, say, or sing. And the songs I write articulate my philosophies and beliefs. Sometimes people disagree with those philosophies and beliefs. Fair enough.

Bruce Springsteen has come out with a new album. He spent much of the last few years campaigning for Democrat candidates and at the behest of MoveOn.org (the left-iest of the leftist left). So far so good.

His new album professes his anti-war sentiment. Well, that’s not really fair. I know of no one who is “pro-war,” per se. But it is pretty clear that Bruce does not think that we should be in this war…or the one just before this one…or the one before that, come to think of it. Anyway—Bruce wants us out of Iraq. Again, we can agree and/or disagree—no problem. His art, his message.

It is one thing for the expression or performance of art to inspire outrage, discussion, or thought; and it is quite another to beat the drum of controversy first, in a craven attempt to generate sales. This is especially true when you are using our national divisions and the blood of soldiers to do so.

The new Springsteen album, titled “Magic” and released last week, has been getting a lot of press. Some of that press has been complimentary of the music itself, but most has been “controversy spin.” The Guardian’s recent article “Springsteen ready for criticism over ‘Magic’ words” is one such example. Note that there is, at this point, no criticism—but darn it, as the article title suggests, Bruce is ready for it. And the article takes a swipe at talk radio as well, quoting Joe Levy of Rolling Stone, ”Springsteen will likely be grist for the mill among conservative radio and talk show hosts who will likely rail against the record and its message.” “Likely,” eh? One cannot help but detect a bit of hope in Mr. Levy’s comments and Bruce’s “readiness” that a few talk show hosts and other folks will actually talk about the album.

All of this seemingly coordinated messaging smacks of a focused PR effort to not only “get in front” of the issue, but to literally drive the message and generate the hype. Real controversies generate themselves without artificial prodding. True art inspires its own discussions. Good music sells in spite of controversy, not because of it.

Remember—no one has yet criticized Bruce Springsteen or his message that I am aware of. And if there is any criticism, those authors have a right to their say as well. Freedom works. PR and advertising people do their job, and band’s and record companies sell music for profit.

Some record labels use Night-club frolics, love affairs, faux grudges, and rehab clinics to gin-up the publicity that their stars need when albums are released. We all cringe at such ploys and shrug our shoulders in dejected acceptance that this comes with the territory. The Springsteen team appears to be using their political media connections to do so. Hey—freedom of speech, I really get that, too. But as the fans are cheering “The Boss” and holding up signs at concerts saying things like “No Blood for Oil” they would do well to remember that this is a “profit” deal. Each attendee will have paid upwards of $79.00 per seat for the concert tickets, the album sells for $9.97 at Amazon.com, and you can download individual tracks off the album for $.99 each from Itunes.

Today’s Springsteen fans may not like the reasoning or execution of the Iraq conflict, but they must find a way to philosophically justify squeezing a few drops of that precious blood into a seemingly contrived controversy that revitalizes a music career and generates literally hundreds of million of dollars in revenue for…um…let’s just call them ”Big Music.”

I want all musicians to get paid for their performances and their product. I do not begrudge them that. And it is certainly not necessary that they agree with me on any counts at all. If any individual or group should attempt to silence a musician, I stand at the ready to defend them. But it is this writer’s (and musician’s) opinion that the intentional conjuring of pseudo-controversy on an issue that indeed is tinted by the blood of soldiers and patriots crosses a line. The Springsteen publicity machine should not be silenced, but perhaps they should be a bit ashamed.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Fear
Your 'Ol pal Huckleberry posits some thoughts on human nature and one concept of Fear.

What is that characteristic that makes fear such a unique quality among mankind. It is true that animals have fear, but the fear experienced among animals is that of predator and prey; the shock of the unexpected; the tenuous and unfamiliar; and the anxiety that comes—like the Pavlovian ringing of the bell—from an associated experience or training. Mankind shares all of these petty fears with the animal kingdoms and then some. We develop fears of things where none would occur to the beasts of the field. And unlike the animals, we require no ringing bell or heavy-handed master to wring fear from our soul—we teach fear to ourselves.

Each of us can close our eyes and imagine ourselves. This is unique to us amongst all creation. As we do so, often we do not like what we see. There will be elements that we do like—other things we are unsure of. There are undoubtedly pieces that we see as simply bits of us that are neither good nor bad. All of these are jumbled up alongside other bits of baggage and treasures that we have carried along for the ride—imposed upon us through relationship and experience. But surely there is more. For none of us can ever be fully aware of how we understand ourselves fully. Just as there are unconscious pieces and bits that inform our peculiar tics and behaviors, there are unconscious bits and pieces of our definition of ourselves that we do not understand and may never be fully aware of. In any event, the mosaic of our self-definition only takes shape when viewed with some distance—like a fine mosaic of ceramic and glass, each shard of glazed clay and chip of stained crystal has sharp edges and smooth spots and various shapes and forms that are incongruous until one stands back from that whole. A few paces back, the colors blend and the shapes blur into form and an image appears. Many of those pieces were laid by our own had and are fraught with bits of denial and deception. This is, after all, our self-image—not necessarily our true image—and we added the denial and deception to fill in the gaps and missing pieces in vain attempt to see ourselves for ourselves. At some point then we think that we have a picture that is relatively complete.

We live our lives seeing all that happens to us in the light that bounces off of this self image. Eventually we convince ourselves that this image is reality--or at least it is "our" reality as if there were more than one.

There are those who then project this self image outward. They take their image and place its strictures onto the people and the world around them. Think of the man who cheats on his taxes or steals from, his employer because he believes that everyone cheats steals. He cannot accept the good in any man because he cannot find the good in himself.

There are others who project their image inwardly. Think of the person who believes himself worthless because he believes in conceit that others see him as worthless.

There are those who construct their opinion of themselves based upon this self-appraisal.

• The captain of business who believes himself superior.
• The master of a craft who sees himself defined by his skill.
• The well-ordered mind that sees all within his control.
• The disciplined athlete who sees himself as a physical sculpture of flesh.
• The glutton who finds pardon and comfort in his girth.
• The self-defeatist who satisfies his excuses in the vagaries of fortune.
• The manic who justifies himself in his production of work.
• There are so many more.

Each of us wraps the definition around ourselves as a blanket. We use it to shape our understanding of ourselves, our world, and all that we experience. In this it is comforting. But is it real or a distortion. Consider that each of us has anxiety, fear, despising, and dread of all things, experiences, people, and ideas that challenge this self-imposed mosaic of our soul.

Be well,
Huckleberry