This subject, mercifully absent for a while, seems to be popping up once again. Now, personally, I couldn't care less if there are homosexuals in the military or if there aren't or what the policy might be regarding revealing sexual preferences and so on. If pressed on the subject, I suppose my position might be "Let the Generals decide. The military is not about fairness or political correctness. It's about having mean sonsofbitches ready to defend your country." But, of course, I haven't been asked.

So, if I don't care about the policy why would I want to write about it. Well, because it is yet another illustration of how people in the media so frequently miss significant points (in my view) in so many stories. Whenever the issue is discussed all manner of question and point and counterpoint are raised. However, I have yet to hear one thing mentioned. That is, the question of exposure to potentially sexually arousing people.

There are females in the military. Do they share showers with males soldiers? Sleeping quarters? Toilets? Of course not. Naked women amongst 18 year old macho guys is a recipe for disaster - or mega-fun, depending on your viewpoint. Women are quartered separately and either have separate facilities or make use of shared facilities at different times. But then, in terms of sexual attraction and arousal, is not a naked male the same to a homosexual male as a naked female is to a heterosexual male? If not, what's the difference? Seems to me, if I were a male in the military I'd claim that I was being discriminated against. After all, if homosexual males are allowed to see me and my pals naked in the shower, should I not be able to see my female comrades in arms equally naked?

Silly? Maybe. But if so, please tell me what I am missing. (Please do not answer "A brain". I know that already.)

"I never go without my dinner.  No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that. "
 ~Oscar Wilde

I just noticed that I have a strange habit. (I have countless strange habits but, their being habits, I tend to not notice them unless someone points them out.) So what's this strange habit? I say grace. Huh? Yes, me - not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Dervish, Zoroastrian, Treky, iPhone-ian or anything. A dyed in the wool, card carrying, devout, capital "A", Agnostic - gives thanks before eating. I think that probably qualifies as "strange".

Now, understand, not believing in any of those deities one normally associates with such behaviour, I don't give thanks to any such cosmic divinity. I thank the animal. And I mean it sincerely. There sits the pork chop on my plate - the sad remains of something that just a few days ago was kicking back, hanging in the slop 'hood with his buds and other homies, maybe having a brew or two and catching a game on the tube or, if he was lucky, getting over on some comely pigette, and then whamo! - bashed, bled, hacked up and packaged so that I can meet my daily protein requirements cheaply and effortlessly (Not to mention a lot more tastily than by sucking up mouthfuls of insects from a termite hill). I am damned thankful. And just in case there is a piggy spiritual world and this evening's dinner is looking down on me, I want him to know I am very appreciative. So, I say grace.

There are those who change the world and are famous for it. Galileo, Newton, Pasteur for example. Contemporary examples would obviously be Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. There are also those, though, who change the world and few but "insiders" are aware of their existence or impact. We lost one of those yesterday. Les Paul died.

For those who don't know, Les Paul invented, among other things, the electric guitar. (See his Wikipedia entry for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Paul ) You may not know his face, but you sure as hell have seen his guitars a million times or more. Next to the Fender Stratocaster, the Les Paul, in its various permutations, has been the most prevalent instrument in rock and pop for 50 years. He was my generation's Jobs or Gates or great app inventor.

As I just said to an old friend on Facebook, I suppose one can either thank him for a lot or blame him for a lot, depending on one's viewpoint. I am reminded of the many movies about rock 'n' roll I saw as a kid in the late 50's. They all had a common theme or sub-theme: middle aged parents or church or civic leaders or whatever being up in arms about this new jungle music with its primal rhythms and risque lyrics and how it would be such an evil influence on young people, leading to drug use, loose sexual mores and disrespect for authority. Funny. They were absolutely right.

So long, Les. And thanks.

"Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man."
Martin Heidegger

I have long believed that language is among the most powerful of human inventions. As I often aver to friends, Mao was just plain wrong with his famous "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." The truth is, power comes from the ability to convince idiots and others to pick up that gun and shoot people on your behalf. That said, my real point here is not that eloquent speech can persuade - though clearly it can - but that the adoption of particular words in particular contexts gives rise to unconscious prejudices that can be almost unshakable and can color, or, shall I say, distort, one's ability to think objectively and critically.

Consider, for example, homosexuality. These days various states and countries enact or debate about laws regarding same-sex marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals and other contentious sexual orientation related issues. How far have we come (thankfully) in the last half century from the days when homosexuals most frequently were secretive (of necessity) and viewed as either evil, humorous, pathological, creepy or, benignly, quaint. Though homophobia has by no means disappeared it has certainly become less widespread and almost universally regarded as bigotry or at least distasteful bad form. Increased liberalism and education generally account for this change in most people's view, I imagine. To me though, this entire shift in consciousness is an inverted pyramid balanced on a single point: the introduction and successful selling of the word "gay". Before this word (with it's current meaning) entered the language via brilliantly executed PR campaigns we had, at best, "homosexual" and, more commonly, "faggot", "queer" and all the others. It's hard to hate someone "gay". Without the underlying universal acceptance of the word "gay", it would be impossible to call a television show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" - or to produce it in the first place. Replace a pejorative with a euphemism and you can change the world.

So, to my more current point. We are, I am convinced, right on the cusp of a paradigm shift in human behaviour and it would seem to be predicated less on what has become hotly debated science and more on the co-opting of the language with which the debate is waged. Ask yourself - when was the last time you heard the phrase "global warming"? If you are an average person consuming an average amount of television, print media and the net, I'd wager it was at least two or three months ago. How could that be? Until recently the phrase was inescapable a dozen times a day. Well, clearly the subject has not disappeared - only that specific set of two words. What has happened? They have, overnight, been replaced with "climate change".

When I pointed this out to one learned friend his response was "Well, really, the ONLY reason for the change is that "global warming" gives people the wrong impression." To which another replied "Funny how people get confused when you tell them that it's getting warmer and they notice it getting colder." Fear not, I am not about to get into a pro or con rant on the subject of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), but there is no denying that this sudden shift of language coincided with the release of stats showing that predicted temperature increases had not, over a ten year period, materialized. What I am interested in here is the words used in discussion of a subject that, in one way or another, will forever change how humans live on Earth.

One thing I think all can agree on is that the carbon-driven warming scare is the foundation for numerous and profound legal, economic and social changes - some already implemented and some pending. Extremists would have us go back to the Pleistocene and moderates think we must each, at a minimum, become aware of our personal "carbon footprints" and change our way of living. New taxes, regulations, energy and fiscal policies are all on the books or in the wings. Nobody on earth will go unaffected by what the powers that be have in store for us. We will all, in one way or another, be made poorer and less self-determined by what's ahead.

These are heady and potentially dangerous measures we face, but many people are on the bandwagon: The politicians for the increased power and control it gives them. The scientists (some, not all, of them) for the increased funding. The investors (a la Al Gore) who stand to make billions if only they can get the right laws passed.  The media, which hates "everything is okay" as a headline. But how can these omnibus climate/energy laws be sold on the basis of increased carbon causing rising temperatures and ultimately a doomsday "tipping point" after which New Yorkers will be up to their necks in sea bass and jellyfish if the science - the temperature records - tells the damned public it isn't happening? A tough sell if ever there was one. The solution: Change the language.

Substituting "climate change" for "global warming" is like substituting "weather" for "typhoon" or "bodily health" for "cancer". The latter are things against which one might take precautions or concoct treatment. The former are simply reality. This simple change of wording - this segue - is as insidious as it is powerful.  Speak of "global warming" and you are referring to a subject debatable in two ways: 1. is it happening, and 2. what is the cause. "Climate change" however cannot be debated. The climate changes. Period. And, more importantly, with the wording change the cause - human activity - is now a given, not a question. What was, under the rubric "global warming", a question to be answered, is now, as "climate change", a premise.

By eliminating the pesky and uncooperative "global warming" from the debate and slipping in "climate change" in its stead, the zealots have won the day. No matter what happens with temperatures and sea levels and glaciers or whatever - up, down, sideways - it will all be seen as evidence of or augury of "climate change". And, after all, "climate change" = "bad" = "you are to blame". But not to worry. Big Brother has it under control. Just drink this Kool Aid.

Words words words. Can't live with 'em… can't shoot the politicians and media wonks.

The 40th anniversary of one of the most impressive scientific achievements ever is upon us. At the urging of JFK the US spent a gazillion dollars, employed a quarter-gazillion big brained scientists and miraculously over a period of less than 10 years managed to get bodies on the moon and bring them back. We take it for granted now, but really, what an astounding thing to do.* It might be argued that at 10:17 pm EST, July 20, 1969, America reached its crowning glory, the culmination of 300 years of unheard of economic, military, social and scientific progress, and everything since has been anti-climax.

For me, though, whenever something reminds me of the event, it is not the achievement, the iconic visual image of Armstrong, looking like the Michelin Man, taking that step, or geopolitical implications, it is that Armstrong blew his line. "One small step for man…." How many times have we heard that? And how often, if ever for most people, does it occur to one that it was a mistake. "Man" and "mankind" both being synonyms for "humanity", the first words spoken from the surface of that bleak satellite were self-contradictory drivel. (I also find this a fascinating point because many Asians and others whose languages have no definite or indefinite articles often question the necessity of them.) Armstrong did at some point later indicate that he had intended to say "That's one small step for a man…".

Perhaps I wax too imaginative or poetic, but I can't help but see this trifling slip as the perfect encapsulation of modern America: At the end of an awesomely spectacular journey that few could have imagined much less attempted, history's greatest ever social/political/economic experiment achieves a celestial apex - then blows it's line.

(*All this means nothing, of course, if you are one of those delightfully wacky people who are convinced the whole thing never happened. Conspiracy theories? I'm all for them! I figure pretty much everything we see is a part of or function of one utterly unbelievable conspiracy or another. But the moon landing shot on a movie lot? Even for this card carrying tin foil hat wingnut, this is a stretch.)

[Another related quote I like:
"September 11 defines a generation that was not around when JFK was assassinated or when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Therefore, those old enough to have witnessed the event will never forget images from that day." - Jeff Kiley
No idea who this guy is but I like his line.]

"I'm happy to be alive, I'm happy to be who I am."

Michael Jackson

I've had the news on TV in the other room all morning - listening to the endless, self-important, drivel forthcoming from anyone who has ever made a record or appeared on TV. Now and then someone inserts something intelligent but they are the few exceptions that prove the rule that most people (including yours truly, no doubt) have nothing intelligent to say about anything .

As for Michael Jackson himself, my feelings are simple:

1. Not all the money and fame in the world could be enough to compensate for being as troubled, lonely, and generally messed up as this man appeared to be.
2. He was a pop music genius. Wacky, embarrassingly over the top at times, and rivaling even Elvis as a self-caricature, to be sure, (and, for those too young to know it, he did steal most his moves from James Brown,) but the man made "Black and White" for goodness sake. Wow!

Back to TV - one after another celebrity is introduced for comment with the ubiquitous "superstar" label attached. That word, along with "legendary", I'd be happy enough to see disappear from the vernacular. If we must use it, let's apply it properly. In my view, only four modern world artists may properly be called "superstar" (and, as of a few hours ago, all in the past tense):

1. Frank Sinatra
2. Elvis Presley
3. The Beatles
4. Michael Jackson

Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.
Buddha 

"It's a fine thing to rise above pride, but you must have pride in order to do so. "

Georges Bernanos

Before I moved to Korea back in the mid 90's I spent nearly 3 years hanging about in Korean karaoke bars, restaurants and clubs in Toronto. That made bowing a familiar sight in my daily life. Subsequently while in Korea it was of course even more ubiquitous. It was something that gave me pause. Many westerners, I noted, willingly bowed without qualm or hesitation. It was not quite so easy for me, though I could not at first verbalize what made me uneasy. After some consideration I did manage to come up with the following:

It seems to me there are 3 forms of physical greeting.

1. Hugging.
Not much needs to be said about this. It is simply the physical expression of affinity between intimates. I am all for hugging. The more, the better.

2. Handshakes.
Shaking hands is interesting. Its essence is simple. It is done with the right hand - the weapon hand. It is simply an extension of an EMPTY weapon hand to say "See? No weapon. I am not here to threaten you, but to greet you."

3. Bowing.
What does a bow express? Easy. Subservience. A bow says "You are my superior. I offer you my exposed neck so that you may cut off my head, if that is what you wish." It is the human equivalent of the vanquished wolf tossing back its head to expose its throat to the victor. It is begging for mercy.No wonder that many westerners, especially Americans, feel queasy at the thought of bowing.

There is one area other than the social, business, or political in which we find bowing everywhere, of course. Religion. It was this that got me to thinking about bowing today. I read the following in "Complete Idiot's Guide to Zen Living":

"Some people find it degrading, not in the spirit of Zen, or even idolatry to bow to figures of the Buddha or other Buddhist figures. Actually such suppication is meant to remind the practitioner that the self isn't important. It is like a litmus test for the ego. If your ego gets inflamed about bowing, it probably needs taming. Many Zen Buddhists go without bowing, however, and it certainly isn't a requirement."

This came as some relief. I simply loathe icons and the thought of bowing to one turns my stomach. Endless genuflection, along with ascribing supernatural events or powers to the Buddha, has always made me turn away from a practice (NOT a religion) that otherwise has always held enormous appeal. (I sometimes think that some Buddhist monks are perhaps the only truly sane human beings on earth.)

So, what's the upshot of all this? How did I come to deal with bowing in Korea during my 8 year sabbatical? Actually it became quite simple. I decided that I would quite readily bow - to anyone who bowed first or was likely to bow back. This simplified life enormously.

Of course, should Queen Elizabeth decide to come a calling I will be faced with a dilemma once again. Actually, not really.  

 "The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
  George Washington

It is the simple fact that now in the United States, despite Obama's promise during the election campaign that he would repeal the Patriot Act and thereby end the practice, it is possible to be legally/illegally "disappeared" - swept up off the street at the whim of one or another public servant, injected into a system where habeas corpus, the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, and international law hold no sway and you might never be heard from or of again. I say "legally/illegally" because the practice is sanctioned by laws but those laws are as far from being constitutional as a budgerigar is from being a condor. No matter, it seems. The American public is happy enough to sit quietly as their once great nation daily resembles the Third Reich more with each passing day - despite the coronation of the messiah and his "change you can believe in".

Now if this were not enough to keep any relatively sane foreigner from not entering Mordor, they've added yet more disincentive. Beginning next month, all foreigners leaving the country will be fingerprinted. Also in June, the Department of Homeland Security (wouldn't "Gestapo" have been shorter, more familiar and less of a mouthful?) will begin a trial wherein Canadians and Americans traveling between the two countries will be issued with identity cards with embedded RF. I suppose we should be thankful they have not decided to demand that they be implanted.

911 justifies this?

My god! What on earth has happened to Americans?

Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.
~Albert Einstein

For veterans Day a regular Lew Rockwell (www.lewrockwell.com) contributor published a list of his favorite anti-war films. I disagreed with most of it because, as I have said before, I thnk that whatever you put on screen, no matter how grim, you promote. When a film such as "Platoon" is released, enlistment figures do not fall; they rise.

There was one entry that caught my attention though: The Americanization of Emily - a 1964 Arthur Hiller film starring James Garner (one of my faves) and Julie Andrews. I recall seeing and liking the film many years ago but it seems I forgot one truly amazing scene. It is an anti-war diatribe unlike any other that I have seen in a film before or since. On viewing it again I am honestly shocked that bald sanity such as this ever made its way into a Hollywood feature.

Have a look HERE