Recent

   There is a Walter Becker song called “Book of Liars”, I first heard it on the Steely Dan “Alive in America” album some years ago, as with almost all songs connected with Becker and Fagen there are some enigmatic lyrics but what has struck me the most is the song’s title. What would a book of liars look like? Is it ancient, or renewed every so often and purged somehow? Who gets to tend this book? Where is the line drawn between something incorrectly stated and a lie? Just the three words of the title provide a whole series of questions.  The questions naturally lead back to the nature of truth, how does one determine what the true is and who gets to make the determination, maybe the book is autonomous. I suppose there could be multiple books, sorted by country, region, or some other arbitrary category meant to encapsulate a specific population and set of ideals. Multiple books don’t seem like something that could be curated by Truth with a capital T, unless it is some cosmic version of Encyclopedia Britannica.  Another question that occurs to me, will I have a personalized copy of this book, will you? Will there be an addendum each year or will the book just grow bit by bit somehow? With these personalized copies, filled especially with lies against what I think I think (for the moment until some other thing changes what I think I think), I can discern the Truth with a capital T for myself. Maybe? Becker keeps saying he is “going to look in the book of liars for your name” during the song. I’d like to look in the book next, unless WikiLeaks beats me to it.   

   When I was in Boy Scouts some years ago citizenship was a core tenet of what it meant to be a good scout. There were three separate merit badges; one for community, one for nation, and one for the world, along with a skill award. All four were required to advance to the highest rank of Eagle Scout. The chapter on citizenship in the Scout Handbook edition I used reminds us that we are citizens all the time. Along with the privilege (their word) of citizenship come responsibilities. One sentence is set alone in the opening statement on citizenship; “The way to become a good citizen is first to KNOW and then to DO.” A cynic might read the chapter on citizenship and see nothing short of indoctrination. There is a brief survey of the regions of America, a list of famous figures and sayings, flag etiquette, advice on being a good citizen (obey laws and pay taxes for instance), and advice on health family and community units. Presumably a boy who could internalize all this information would grow up to be a well-adjusted middle class American. Where I find hope in this section of the handbook is the emphasis on learning to know first. Not all knowledge is found in books and not all knowledge receives an official sanction sometimes. Being a good citizen includes gathering empirical and uncomfortable knowledge when it is not a common experience in your particular spot on the map.  Another gem in this chapter is something called The American’s Creed, here is a copy from www.ushistory.org   The American's Creed by William Tyler Page I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies. –Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.   Democracies and Republics are two different political animals. In a true democracy where one person equals one vote and the majority of votes elects rulers it is possible (and not uncommon) to elect leadership that has no interest in personal freedoms and is only concerned with retaining political power for the chosen in a population. How might that differ from what we are supposed to have here in the States? In a Republic there are presumably safeguards that limit the power of a ruling class that has been elected by a limited number of people—the Electoral College is a timely example—who may or may not be directed by the votes of the larger citizenship. In return for this intermediate form of representation there are chartering documents like our Constitution and Bill of Rights among others that define the scope and limits of political power and office. Elected officials can and do wield considerable power within a republic but it is meant to be limited by said documents.  What does all this mean for our young scout who is supposed to know and then do? Well, the last line of the creed is “to defend it against all enemies”; nothing is said about where those enemies might be found. I take it to mean that elected officials are not overlords, they are not all powerful, and they can and should be replaced as soon as possible when they overstep the limits of their charters. It is not that I disagree with one representative’s politics so they all must go if they share those views that is the point, rather it is when a politician or party attempts to fundamentally change or undermine the charters, North Carolina is a prime recent example. Neither party is immune to the temptation, although it is easy to forget. I suspect an avid U.S. history buff could produce plenty of Democratic examples to match and current Republican ones with little effort.  The basis of our government is people, all of them, and the power must ultimately reside there. Power in a modern nation is expressed in various forms, social and economic being prime examples. We are told to vote with our dollars or to support or not support such and such group, that is certainly one way to rein in political power. I came across a document the other day listing effective means to challenge elected representation, much of the material is straight out of the Tea Party playbook and given a progressive slant in this rendering. Either way it is one way for our young scout to move from knowing to doing, and the rest of us can as well if we choose to do so.        

   I have a book called The Names of Maine. It is an interesting read, 172 pages of lore, trivia, and interesting facts about the state I live in. The name of the state itself takes up an entire page with no definitive answer on how the state became so named. Other towns and places are far more succinct, many are English adaptions of Abenaki and Mic Mac words (that explains the spelling and length as English tries to capture the phonics of another language) or holdovers from a similar location in the old world. When I first read the book a question arose that I expect has no satisfactory answer. What does Maine (or the land if you will) call itself?  In our current conception of the world Maine cannot call itself anything, it is not sentient. Ancient civilizations held a completely opposite view in many instances. Not only was the land sentient, all of nature had something to offer. Wisdom, life skills, perseverance, adaptation, etc. were all skills that could be taught to humans from the rest of the natural world. Mythologies in all cultures abound with such stories, primeval beings, talking animals, rivers, ponds, lakes that guide humanity to rescue summertime from the icy clutches, or any number of ways that the land teaches humankind just how to exist in that particular spot on the earth.  Given those stories as a starting point does it seem unreasonable that the land might have some conception of self or self-identity? And if the land does identify itself somehow I doubt that “Maine” is what it would call itself. In most of the lore from native cultures the name the population has means “the people” as a rule; the only people I would wager, until they meet another group of “the people”. Would land refer to itself as “the land”? “The place”? “The …”? All the names that various points of the earth have been given seem inadequate somehow.   Being able to name, or to be named, varies in importance around the world as well. In continental philosophy the ability to name is what allows humankind to bring forth Being into existence according to Heidegger. In Eastern cultures names are illusory ideas that conceal the true nature of reality from humans. Being only arises from, and must pass away into, nonbeing. There are no real things, hence no need of names. Only states of impermanence. The land certainly is, we recognize. Geology tells us that while this land certainly is, it wasn’t always here, or like this, or even this land. Most of the area in Maine where I live was once found in modern day Europe; somewhere near England and Great Britain. It is not until one reaches the New Hampshire border that the land in Maine is most likely from the same continent that was on the western shore of the Iapetus Ocean. Does that part of Maine call itself a different name from the relative newcomer of coastal Maine?  There is not much chance that I will ever have an answer to these questions. Not unless there is some kind of all-encompassing revelation after death (your guess is as good as mine on that one). It does make for an interesting thought problem though, and it certainly challenges the assumptions we hold about human primacy in consciousness. Whatever Maine might choose to call itself it is a fine place to live. Plenty of variety in topography, weather, seasons, and population. In my area along the coast summertime can triple some populations. Culturally the variety is far less than other locals unless you are looking for variety within a narrow group, then it can be fascinating to see the differences between regions. No poisonous snakes or animals as a rule, no tornadoes and hurricanes, and no significant earthquakes (is that the land trying to tell us something or just a bit of slippage along some fault). The worst thing that happens here is generally snow: and you can shovel snow, or snow-blow snow, or plow snow, plus there are plenty of activities that require snow to be indulged in. Whatever Maine might call itself it’s not a bad place to spend a lifetime in.  

      Trump (or Obama, or Hillary, or whomever one does not like) is an idiot! That seems to me to be the prevailing political discourse of our day. Gone is any discussion over policy, any show of statesmanship, or any rational form of discussion. There is, unfortunately, plenty of rationalizing coupled with an abundance of cherry picked facts. While it is comforting—or maybe terrifying—to think of a political other as an uneducated buffoon the root word for idiot is highly relevant to our modern political climate in the United States. The excerpt below is from the Wikipedia entry. Etymology Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill", "a private citizen", "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private", "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person".[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages. An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs.[6] Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education.[6] In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). "Idiot" originally referred to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid". According to the Bauer-Danker Lexicon, the noun ίδιωτής in ancient Greek meant "civilian" (ref Josephus Bell 2 178), "private citizen" (ref sb 3924 9 25), "private soldier as opposed to officer," (Polybius 1.69), "relatively unskilled, not clever," (Herodotus 2,81 and 7 199).[7] The military connotation in Bauer's definition stems from the fact that ancient Greek armies in the time of total war mobilized all male citizens (to the age of 50) to fight, and many of these citizens tended to fight poorly and ignorantly.  Participation in public affairs is the basis of politics, as with many of our modern ideas politics is derived from classical Greece. Polis was the city-state, polites the citizens, and politikos the decisions pertaining to the public life of the citizens. Given the current “anti-intellectual” climate I keep reading about, and occasionally witness first hand, it is difficult to see how public policy can be conducted by anyone save idiots. This is not true of many public officials throughout society. There are numerous highly educated, skilled persons participating in public affairs. Unfortunately, these people often talk in a language inaccessible to the general population.  In ancient Greece public affairs were a matter for the leisure class only, anyone who had to work to support themselves was not welcome. Since the late eighteenth century, spearheaded by the American and French Revolutions, the notion of a noble or ruling class has become an anathema among western liberal democracies. After all: “All men are created equal” and “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” are not slogans that accommodate a notion of inherent superiority simply form one’s birth or education. Operating under these ideals anyone is free to aspire towards political goals regardless of training or qualification. Since all are created equal it stands to reason that advancement is earned on merit.  In the United States there have been other paths to merit besides formal education from inception. The rugged individualist (almost always male—no children to worry about), the self-made millionaire, the immigrant successful in business, the rancher or farmer taming wide swaths of frontier land, the athlete, the popular entertainer, any number of paths are thought to be available to a person with drive and determination. If one has some talent that can be marketed that is even better. Outstanding success in any of these fields can lead one to think that the same traits that worked here will work for a nation. Maybe—a nation is more than a business, more than a show, more than a game, and more than an economy. A nation is comprised of both strong and weak, doers and not-so-muchers, young, old, healthy, infirm, outgoing, reticent, the metonymic chain stretches quite a distance. A nation is also an idea, possibly an ethos, and a collective of like individuals who surrender some personal autonomy for the benefits of a nationality.  Does all this liberal democracy mean we are now nations run by idiots? Will we let just anyone into the halls of power and hand over public policy making based solely on popularity? I certainly hope not, and historically we have successfully avoided too many instances of this scenario across all tiers of the political spectrum, but the possibility certainly exists. The most recent presidential election featured Trump (recall--An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private) vs. Clinton who has spent an entire career in public service of one form or another. Neither candidate is exclusively public or private; Trump has certainly been in the public eye for years and Hilary has private secrets and concerns of her own. The key difference, at least in Ancient Athens, is who the two were working for much of the time.  A person may well make decisions that one does not agree with, even vehemently opposes, while working towards some form of public good. Another person may make statements and decisions that one not only supports but embraces, all whilst working for greater private gain. Wouldn’t the latter case embody a nation being run by an idiot? If I support those policies simply because I will gain as well (others can fend for their own damn selves, should have worked harder anyways) does that make me an idiot too? I do not think we are in need of a return to a ruling and ruled class structure, that ship sailed for good reason. I do believe that some form of previous public service and the experience of making decisions that must include an entire population is an essential ingredient in leading a nation. Leading a company, conglomerate, or even an empire is not the same; there is always the social safety net to catch the castaways. Who do we want in charge of that net—the idiots?                

   On the way into work this morning my son asked if we could take his family to Sam’s Club for their monthly shopping trip next weekend. In our part of the world Sam’s Club is an hour’s drive from where we live. It is not the length of the drive I object to when confronted with a trip to Sam’s Club, instead it is the idea of buying one’s food there.   Were I to be challenged on this notion could there be a valid reason, or are my ideas as devoid of logic as the boxed food (a major reason for the trip) is devoid of nutrition. I can certainly trot out a list of reasons to not buy food there: · I don’t like corporations · I like to shop local · It’s too far away · The food is no good · You don’t really save any money · I prefer homemade It is simple enough to pair the first two points into an ideological stance. Buy local and do not support the evil corporations (calling corporations evil justifies this belief somehow). When it comes to food there might be a more valid reason for this stance. Access to food, water, and shelter are the basic requirements of humankind. Keeping that access local, i.e. not an hour’s drive away, makes food more readily available. That certainly sounds logical. Not all products that Sam’s Club and its parent Walmart carry are available from local merchants—when was the last time most towns had a local TV store? Food is a major exception and most communities have a different option that is at least as nearby as a Sam’s, often much nearer.  Where I live there are two independent meat markets, three organic/natural/local markets, and two independent full line grocery stores along with two chain grocery stores. All of these stores are within twenty minutes of my door. There is also a super Walmart complete with a grocery store inside. From what I can tell the only thing that Sam’s Club offers is bigger boxes of single serving items (think Jimmy Dean breakfast sandwiches) which are cheaper per serving.   This is where “The food is no good” comes from in my view of shopping at Sam’s. If the main reason for going, and paying for a membership every year, is to save on those specific products I contend that the amount of meals per dollar is not all that great. I once took over a kitchen in a struggling restaurant and cut the food cost in half mostly by not purchasing readymade items and making as much as possible in house. It is no different within one’s own household. To my mind the biggest problem with most single serve/readymade items is the inability to use one item for multiple uses. A case in point from the restaurant: When I started the salsa came in plastic jugs, six to a case for about $30. Salsa at its simplest is made with four ingredients; tomatoes, onions, cilantro, and jalapenos. Other than cilantro the other ingredients were all being bought for existing dishes on the menu. In this example, making fresh salsa saves the restaurant $25 (the original price minus the cilantro) and helps prevent spoilage in the fresh produce as we used up a case of tomatoes in a timely manner. The only “extra” requirements are a little time and some attention. The time comes in the form of the fifteen or so minutes to make a batch, and the attention in making proper amounts to prevent spoilage.   Fresh salsa also looks and tastes better to most people, they respond well when it comes with their food. For the breakfast sandwiches mentioned above, two packs of English muffins, a dozen eggs, sausage or bacon (both local meat markets have excellent choices here), butter, and cheese round out the ingredient list. One can make a mean breakfast sandwich, or any number of other breakfasts, with this list of ingredients. The same holds true with buying fresh vegetables and making salsa. When it comes to meat the big box store does not fare well at all. There are some low prices occasionally on some cuts, not as low as they would have you believe though. Once again the difference lies in utility, at my local shop I can request specific cuts, buy a portion big enough or small enough for my needs, and menu plan with some variety. If I only want two pork chops or a three-pound roast that is what I receive. If I buy whole chickens of a good size I can have at least three meals from each chicken; roasted chicken, leftovers, and soup. If I buy prepared chicken dinners that is about all I get.  This discursion pretty well covered the last two points as well. One item worth mentioning though, homemade does not necessarily mean time intensive. Most evenings dinner takes about twenty minutes in our house start to finish. The main exception is when we want baked or roasted potatoes, those take about an hour in the oven with no help required. The rest of the meal is made in the twenty or so minutes at the end. One thing that will benefit making tasty homemade meals is taking an afternoon or evening and making some things ahead, stock for instance. The chicken soup I mentioned above almost always contains stock from the bones of the last few roast chickens, just freeze them until there are enough for a batch.  These are all valid enough reasons, but, do they justify my antipathy towards Sam’s Club? Looking through my reasons and justifications what seems most apparent is sense of independence. Independence from relying on others more than necessary. I am not growing my produce, raising livestock, harvesting grains, etc. I am not making things from scratch, but I do not always want them completely finished either from what I see above—at least when it involves food. What am I trying to preserve with this independence? Choice? Freedom?   I think that might be the root of my objection to shopping at Sam’s Club. They do carry meat, produce, some basic ingredients, but the bulk of the grocery space is given to prepared and prepackaged (no choice) items in larger than average containers. For $20 you can have two big boxes of something which gives you two choices of what to eat. Repeat as needed to round out a menu that requires little participation in exchange for the ability to change your mind later in the week. The concentration under one roof, even a large one, gives an illusion of choice. I would rather have the variety of stores and purveyors spread out a bit, then I can choose between them as I do now. Plus, I don’t have to drive an hour to get there, I can walk to some if I need to. That is a choice worth having.    

 I am guided 

By what is written 

In the dust 

On the dark side of the moon