Exit Strategy-

When we were attacked on 9/11, it was necessary to go to war. We went to Afghanistan and bloodied some of those who attacked us, and some of those who supported those who attacked us. I supported that, because it was necessary. If you are strong and powerful, insults can be tolerated. Assaults can never be tolerated, or there will be no end to them.

I was, however, concerned as to the objective. Capturing Bin Laden and his associates was a laudable objective, but not necessarily a sound condition of victory. We were not there to take over the country, or destroy whatever government was in place. Afghanistan is not a singular entity, and such a condition for victory can never be met.

Then we became entangled in Iraq. That was simply ill advised, though I could buy a surgical action to take out Saddam Hussein. Threat eliminated, we could have withdrawn and simply promised to return if they didn't behave. It could have gone like that.

That didn't happen, so now we had two protracted wars with no clear definitions for victory in either case. Then came a lot of political jargon and some kind of offal about "exporting democracy." At this point it was clear that our decision makers did not have any idea as to the nature of our enemies.

I am not a genius, but I certainly do not assume that the rest of the world longs to adopt the American Way. I find it hard to believe that any of our "leaders" could hold to that. I am not convinced that the world would become a particularly attractive place if we compelled the "rest of the world" to become JUST LIKE US. Narcissistic paranoia is not a particularly attractive state of mind, and certainly not worthy as a major item of export.

So, the Presidential Election of 2008 loomed. I did not wish for any Bush clones. He and his masters had not proved to be particularly good stewards of my future. Obama? Not my first choice. I actually supported Libertarian candidate Christine Smith. However, she was too hard core as a Libertarian for even the Libertarian Party, and I didn't want to vote for compromised Libertarianism, especially since the stood very little chance of success.

Eventually it was Obama as the most likely candidate to win and (hopefully) end these wars. Though slow, his administration has been (seemingly) winding down the war in Iraq. Well, that's half of the battle.

Afghanistan, however, may prove problematic. Obama seems committed to shifting resources being wasted in Iraq to being wasted in Afghanistan. Those resources are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and whatever economic future we may all have. All to be spent on an ongoing war in a distant land, and no real victory in sight.

So, we still have a war with no clear exit strategy, and no clearly defined condition for victory. We still have a politician in the White House dispensing rhetoric instead of wisdom. I don't believe any one administration can do too much damage to the country, so I don't fear Obama being nominally at the helm. However, I had hoped for more.

If Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are our objective our current method will not work. Armies topple governments. To hunt weasels you need hounds. Hounds that are not restricted by rules. Hounds that do not recognize national borders as impediments. Hounds that will fight just like the enemy fights, only better.

War is an ugly business. Politicians like to dress it up and make it pretty. It is not. Soldiers know what it is, but serving the politicians they dress pretty and allow their hands to be tied. Consequently the wars go longer than necessary, rarely accomplish much more than filling graves, and the world muddles on making redundant history.

It is time to release the hounds, and bring the other soldiers home. If our "leaders" cannot find the testicular fortitude to release the hounds, perhaps it is time for a rogue pack to go out and do what is necessary.

Hounds don't necessarily need an exit strategy. Just a suitable Scooby snack.

Little Old Lady Philosophy-

I have coined an awkward phrase. "Little Old Ladies of any Age and Gender." It needs the qualification, otherwise people will think I am speaking of literal little old ladies.

The phrase refers to the prissy and provincial little old ladies (literal) that we have probably all known. Women who have lived sheltered lives, for the most part, and who think that their own narrow little world is all the world there is. Anything else is false, offensive, and without value.

There are plenty of people like that who are not literally little old ladies. However, they think like little old ladies, and so earn the title. With the qualifier, of course.

I recall sitting under the teachings of Dr. John Mitchell of Multnomah School of the Bible. Dr. Mitchell was fond of cigars, but refrained from smoking them due to the prejudice of some Christians, who considered smoking sinful. Dr. Mitchell did not hold to this view, but for the sake of these little old ladies (literal and figurative) he refrained.

This was an admirable accommodation, but I don't believe that he extended this accommodation to church leadership or matters of doctrine. He was a powerful church leader and teacher for most of a century. Such an achievement could not have taken place in an atmosphere of accommodating little old ladies.

I have thought about these little old ladies, from time to time. I have wondered how accommodating Little Old Ladies of Any Age and Gender might have adversely affected churches, states and other institutions. Prissy thinking is not the exclusive realm of churchy little old ladies.

The term Politically Correct is linked with a political orthodoxy, not a religious one, and is generally secular. Hypersensitivity to words and phrases deemed "offensive" can be very Little Old Lady. The fear of offense can cripple creative thinking and affective action.

This is not to say that lighting up cigars (figuratively and literally) in the presence of genuine little old ladies is good practice. Giving offense on purpose is rude and generally counter-productive. Granted, an occasional shock can shake loose some people that need shaking, but for the most part such intentional offenses will work against ideas and the people associated with those ideas.

I have no idea how to fix this phrase in our language, other than to throw it out into the world and see what happens. Little Old Ladies of any Age and Gender. LOLAG? Hmm. Perhaps. Maybe not.

More important than the phrase is the awareness. Is my thinking LOLAG? Am I being prissy, provincial, and small in my thinking? Am I content with my thoughts going unchallenged?

For any (literal) Little Old Ladies who happen to be reading, I apologize for any offense. Really. Just don't be so LOLAG.

Roast Duck-

No, this is not a recipe. I suppose there is a philosophy of cooking, perhaps even a philosophy of recipes, but this is not a blog on that aspect of cooking. In fact, it is not about cooking. Not really.


I like to watch the Travel Channel when I watch television. That, or Food Network. I like travel, and I like eating. The shows that combine these things are my favorites.


Anthony Bourdain has a show called No Reservations. I really like his style. He does a lot of the writing for the show, and his narration is a bit cynical without being harsh and unpleasantly caustic. He is also willing to be surprised by positive aspects of his experiences as he travels, meets people and eats a lot of different foods.

In one episode he is sampling roast duck in the backwaters of China. The video shows the roasting pit, and the ducks, and the man doing the roasting. Anthony quips about the extended experience of the man roasting the duck. His observation is that a man who has roasted duck for forty years will probably produce an excellent roast duck.

If I recall correctly, Anthony did indeed find the duck to be excellent.

It caused me to wonder, however, about a man who would roast ducks for forty years. A man who probably received the duck roasting recipes and techniques and even the business as a family legacy.

Forty years. Roast duck. Probably duck done by time honored techniques and tradition. Generations of duck roasting.

Part of me wants to be such an expert at something. Part of me is horrified by the prospect of roasting ducks for the whole of a lifetime.

Granted, in much of the world a man (or woman) who received a successful family business and the skills to run that business would consider themselves lucky. Though the work is long and hard and ever so much the same, it is also valued and skilled and allows for a good life without too much suffering. Perhaps even a very good life, relative to the context in which it is being lived.

This should give me perspective on my own life. I have lived very well, and in the context of human history I am a man of great wealth. I have more than enough to eat, and eat more than I need all too often. I live indoors when I wish. I have family, and steady employment. I, in company with a major bank, own a home. I own land, a thing coveted by generations of humans.

My health is pretty good. It is great, most of the time, and even when it hasn't been it has not brought about long-term adversity. I do not struggle against those who would take my wealth or freedom or health, except in a very general and extremely indirect way.

I have not been compelled to roast ducks for forty years of my life. In fact, I have never roasted a duck, though I actually would like to do so. I have chosen to do some things I have not found fulfilling in order to fund the balance of my life, but no one thing for forty years. I perceive this as a price I pay for a relatively good life.

Is a roaster of ducks for forty years a man fulfilled? Anthony Bourdain may speak with admiration for such a man, but Anthony moved on in his chosen field and then moved out into related broadcasting. He paid some serious dues, but he was never a roaster of ducks for forty years.

In thinking on the roasting of ducks I find more questions than answers.

It also leaves me hungry.

Profound Trivialities-

I was responding to a blog the other day, and had occasion to relate something as to how this particular philosopher developed. I related to my youthful atheism, the transition to agnosticism, and my eventual conversion to Christianity.

Somehow, thinking on this I am reminded of the time I pointed out to a friend that our being together at that moment was the culmination of all of History. Yep. All of the events, great or small, that preceded our existence at that place and that time were represented in that moment. Us, together, talking about profound trivialities.

The atheism of my youth was largely a response to the apparent disorder of the world in which I lived, the presence of evil in the world, and an angst that was probably hormonal in nature. It was also partially ego driven. I felt cool declaring myself to be an atheist.

My agnosticism that followed was more thoughtful. I realized that the scope and potential of my human knowledge did not allow for an intellectual base large enough to declare God as non-existent. This occurred at a time in my youth when I was becoming profoundly aware of the scope of my ignorance. I perceived myself as a speck of dust on a speck of dust, and declaring the non-being of God was tragically egotistical.

Over the next several years I recognized that starting from the presupposition of a profound ignorance I tended to think on things with fewer biases and to be open to more ideas. I also embraced the concept of tentative belief as the starting point of any investigation.

That was, of course, during such times as I was actively thinking and building a world view. Keep in mind that I was young and often driven by my hormones and lurching maturation rather than careful thought.

For a time I thought Science would provide the avenue for expansion and exploration. It indeed was a realm of great interest, and some of the disciplines of thought rubbed off as I dabbled. However, I saw scientific study as an ever narrowing focus in which the scientist learned more and more about less and less. To exhaust the narrowest speciality in any given field of science was an impossible task.

Study was endless, but life is short. Throw in the threat of being drafted and sent to Viet Nam as an agent of our great nation and a sense of mortality grew deep and morbid. I responded by dabbling in sensuality but was not really cut out for it. Always I returned to the life of the mind.

It was the Age of Aquarius, and I was caught up in the wave of mysticism. I contemplated learning from the major religions by practicing each one for a time. As I explored the scope of my intended project I was often overwhelmed. So much to learn and do, and so little time.

I explored Hinduism first, cobbling my own mystical adventure as I sought knowledge. I might have sought formal guidance, but I joined the Army in hopes of avoiding Viet Nam. I reasoned that nuclear weapons were not deployed in active war zones, and so sought training in that field. My course was altered, however, by my inability to focus on the required training and my own inner explorations at the same time.

Failing my training in the maintenance of nuclear weapons I was sent to the Quartermaster corps, and became a Army supply specialist. That time of training in supply management was transitional. I was brought into constant contact with the first Christian I had ever met who was wholly committed to his faith.

His faith was intriguing. I reconsidered my course of exploration, and decided to explore Christianity next. I decided to believe in this Christian's God, and in this Jesus who somehow saved me from sin. I did not really know much about sin and salvation, but I embraced the things I learned as if I did believe.

Over a matter of weeks I did believe, and I began to grow in the faith I had adopted. My path took me through several of the many sub-sets of that which is Christian, and my own beliefs took form as a consequence of the experiences.

So it went for many years. I have held many jobs, been married for over three decades, raised three children to adulthood, and assumed my greatest title in that time. The whole course of my personal history, which was a consequence of all of history before my time, made me a grandfather. The title "Papa" is my greatest achievement.

Trivial. Everyone has a grandfather or two. Profound. No other experience is like loving and being loved by grandchildren. It is a mystery beyond mere knowledge, the confirmation of magic in the Universe.

I have no hope of knowing all I long to know. My mortal life is too short, and my resources are too few. However, I have hope of knowing what is best. I have walked dark paths, and seen the face of evil more than once. They are nothing compared to the light of love my grandchildren have shown me. That love is but a glimmer of the love that my God has for me.

How do I know? That is the mystery, and the mysticism. As I have only recently come to understand, my agnosticism has shaped me as much as my faith. I still love knowledge and learning, and embrace the experiences that give me both. Knowing and believing is only part of the experience. Greater, by far, is the mystery.

What, then, beyond this life? Yes. What then?

The Death Penalty-

Over time I have reconsidered my support for the death penalty. Perhaps some is the consequence of the changed perspective of many years of living. A great deal is the consequence of working many years in a county jail.

I have learned something of what life in prison is like. Even in our relatively humane modern prisons life is difficult and brutish. It is no favor to the guilty to sentence them to a life in prison, especially without prospect of parole.

With that in mind, the appetite for vengeance that drives the passion for the death penalty for many people can be satisfied with the knowledge that it is not a pleasant life to which the guilty are assigned.

Additionally, by sentencing a person to a life in prison it does remain possible to reverse the sentence should additional evidence vindicate a sentence server. That simply cannot be done in the case of an execution. On this point the opponents to the death penalty are right, no matter what their actual motive for that opposition.

From a cost only perspective a quick execution of those found guilty of murder would be a savings. However, few executions soon follow a sentence, and death row inmates are expensive to hold. Calculating a break even point in the cost of a life sentence as opposed to a death sentence might prove difficult.

I don't have the data, but the rough figures I have seen in the past indicate that the greater expense of death row housing over the protracted periods inmates reside in such housing hint at a probable savings in an alternative a life sentence.

While working in jail I have transferred a lot of young people to prison. Some I have transferred repeatedly. As the inmates aged they tended to get longer sentences. I don't recall seeing any of these repeat offenders come back after reaching the age of forty five or so.

Are they dying in prison? It would seem so. Many become diseased due to chronic abuse of drugs, alcohol, and dangerous sexual practices. Many practice violence in their youth that eventually comes back upon them as they are sentenced to long terms later in life. The probability of a long life is not high in prison.

I shall not be joining any protests of the death penalty. I shall not strive to halt any particular executions. I shall support elimination of the death penalty as a voter. I will probably not consider the position of a candidate on the death penalty as critical with regard to my support and my vote.

I am reminded of one inmate I transferred to prison. He had three consecutive life sentences. I was confident he would serve the first one. I doubted he would make it through the other two.

Death was too good for him.

I Sell You Fish!

Years ago I had a friend and co-worker who was from England. He was an older gentleman, a working class fellow with working class values. He would, from time to time, relate stories from his past.

This is one of them.

The Second World War was raging as he came of age. Barely of age. He joined the British Navy at the age of seventeen, and spent some time in the North Sea and the English Channel. He was engaged in the D-Day assault, and support work after that significant day.

During one of those support cruises his ship was taking on supplies off of the coast of France. A French fisherman was selling his catch to the English liberators.

One sailor quipped, "I bet you are glad to see us."

The fisherman continued to unload his catch. As he did so, he said "When the Germans were here I sold them fish. Now you are here. I sell you fish!"

I could visualize this practical man who drew his living from the sea. Before the German occupation of France he sold his fish to the French. With the German occupation he sold his fish to the Germans. With the liberation he sold his fish to the English.

His life probably did not change much over the course of the war. His life was well ordered, though probably far from easy. He knew how to fish. Fish provided food, and procured the other things he needed in his simple life. He may have been contemplative, a deep thinker as well as deep fisher.

By his answer I would think he was probably not.

I certainly find appealing the idea of a life unaffected by the social and political winds. I just don't see our country falling to an outside foe. We still have too much power for that. I do see the possibility of us falling to economic changes, and some inward upheaval which will redefine the United States of America as something else.

Could I ride out such a shift? Could I sell my "fish" to whomever comes seeking them?

In thinking about this, I realize how bound I am to the existing way of life. I have vesture in a government pension, one for which I have worked and upon which my later life shall largely depend. I am not yet old but I am far from young. To be compelled by world events to start over is a rather unpleasant and overwhelming prospect.

It is unlikely that I shall ever be tested in this. Thinking about it, however, does emphasize just how dependent I am on the system as it is. I may long for change in that system, but I can no longer comfortably harbor thoughts of radical change.

Thinking about this old story, one I heard years ago, has compelled me to think a bit more about myself.

Perhaps I need to go fishing.

Lines of Tension-

Some years ago I came up with the idea of lines of tension existing between various aspects of my being. Not just my own being, the concept would apply to everyone. However, I am only fully familiar with my own being, and these were my own thoughts.

As an example, take the ideas of freedom and security. Currently the world is troubled by some nebulous threat called "the terrorists." In exchange for greater security from this threat it is expected that we give up some of our freedoms. Thus, we can see that there is a line of tension between the concept of freedom and the concept of security.

To get more security one must give up some freedom. To gain freedom one must sacrifice security. Tension.

I follow a blog called Geeks on Tour. In the post linked here Chris relates a line of tension I had not thought about. Dreams----Duty. The example was two movies. Follow the link, as Chris relates the two films quite nicely, demonstrating the line of tension between following one's dreams and following one's duty.

In my vague theory on these lines of tension I see happiness/contentment/fulfillment existing for each individual somewhere along each line. My mother-in-law Alta would be quite content to give up a great many freedoms to gain security. I, however, will tollerate considerably less security to have freedom. We are at different places on the line of tension, each seeking whatever happiness/contentment/fulfillment we can find.

Life is comprised of many aspects that exist in tension. Dreams and duty are another two. I responded to Chris's observations because sacrificing dreams in the name of duty had caused considerable trouble within me in the past. I was falling into a debilitating depression due to the level I had sacrificed dreams to fulfill duties. It was necessary to bring these aspects of myself back into tension in order for me to regain stability and begin working toward whatever happiness/contentment/fulfillment I might hope to find along that given line.

A perfectly balanced life would exist for any particular individual at that place where all lines of tension are in balance. Not the absolute center of each line, of course. It would be the place where each line is occupied at just the right point. It would be the ideal life for that individual.

I can only imagine such a place, and wonder what it would be like. I generally find balancing one line throws another off balance, and I am constantly recovering from previous imbalances. I suspect that my experience is not unique.

At best this model of lines in tension can be useful in assessing conflicting aspects of life. Perhaps I will find the time to asess my life in the light of my little theory. Make lists. Draw lines.

Time. Hmmm. Time----

What is at the other end of that line?