What We Seem Willing to Give Up

First, a quick update concerning my last post, A Plan and a Plot. I received an encrypted message from the Genius whom I named in that post, in which two other topics were brought to my attention which I failed to mention.

The initial issue concerns book banning. Using the vaguely defined, and purposefully unspecific term "woke", the GOP is justifying the censorship of thought by associating the treatment all American citizens equally, with big government and establishment thinking. In their narrative, parents should have the right to ban books from their local schools and communities just because they don't want their children to read that particular book. It doesn't seem to matter if other parents prefer there be choice in the matter (freedom), or, in some cases, if the offended adults even have children attending the school district, their "parental rights" allow them to choose for everyone, even those parents who are OK with a particular book. What is clear is that what the majority thinks isn't the point, just that when a vocal, or even one might say, tyrannical minority, protests, all must follow their preferences. 

The idea of telling their children they must not access a particular book, or even informing the school's librarian that they prefer their children not be exposed to a book (or idea, which is really the point), doesn't seem to occur to them. Just, I don't like it, therefore no one should. Arrogance in its highest form.  And, of course, since there are many politicians who, lacking the ability to make strong leadership decisions, prefer to pander to the most vocal and visual, these "righteous" parents are successful in controlling the content that ALL children can access. After all, what do school librarians know about literature, and books, and what children like to read?

But again, President Joe smiles, knowing that the growing majority of voters, those aged 30 to 50, who will be determining future elections, do not want one or two parents deciding what all children should read. 

The other topic is guns and the 2nd Amendment. The NRA and GOP have successfully sold the idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only right that should never have restrictions. That possessing as many guns with as much firepower as you want, is a protected "God-given" right, (I don't recall Jesus packing a weapon during any of his sermons, but hey, perhaps he carried a big stick and we just were never told), and so any law that requires a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a history of violence, mental instability, etc, or requires a gun to be registered, or even places limits on guns which are only used to kill people, is somehow anti-American, or against the founders intent.

A friend of mine, who is a grammar geek, recently posted her review of using apostrophes, commas, etc. Well, perhaps her lesson should be mandatory for all citizens in respect to interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Perhaps I am missing something, but the comma after the word Militia, and described by the phrase "being necessary...", is the reference noun for the phrase that finishes the statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It is the Militia that should be well armed, perhaps a national guard unit, or the actual US military which acts on behalf of the citizenry. Remember, those words were written when America was a fledgling country, trying to divorce itself from England, one of the most powerful nations on earth at the time. Everyone, or almost everyone, possessed a gun to hunt, or for personal protection, both in the colonies and in Europe. England did not care about personal muskets being owned by farmers, but they did care about organized community militias with semi-trained soldiers and stores of munitions. It was that scenario they wished to control, and it was that right that the founders were addressing, which is why they specifically referred to Militia, and not citizen, or the individual.

So again, in face of the fact that death by gun violence is the number one killer of children, not disease or accidents, President Joe smiles when he hears GOP candidates rally around the flag in one voice against gun (I call it violence) control, because he knows, again, that the upcoming majority of voters, many of whom either personally experienced active shooter drills while in elementary school (yes, those same places where a book and its idea should be banned because it might make a child uncomfortable), or certainly know their children have, consider gun control measures a good thing, a logical thing, and not another example of government overreach. 

OK, so to today's post.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to a Reading Phillies minor league baseball game. Very pleasant, a nice evening, reasonable prices, free parking, fireworks afterwards, and even a 4-3 victory. During the game, we couldn't help overhearing part of a conversation between the two women sitting behind us. They were most likely of our generation, 50+, but still working so probably not over 65. 

The conversation which struck us revealed that one of the women was not close to one or some of her children. She literally remarked that she didn't communicate with them very often, and was not only resigned to the fact that they were estranged, even seemed proud in that she was OK that if they didn't want to share their lives anymore, she was too old to care, or let that bother her anymore.

Now, I don't know the source of their problem. I do know that there have been many stories in the media about boomers who either do not, or rarely talk to their children. Certainly, our toxic politics is one reason, along with religion and economics, and I am sure that arguments about lifestyle, marriage choice, work life, how to raise the grand kids, etc, are also reasons for disagreement.

But for Nora and I, never seeing our kids, or not seeing (or communicating for years) seems unfathomable. No child (and certainly no parent) is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and poor choices, but to accept that those differences mean losing touch with your children is not only a shame, but indicative of how our society is crumbling. They say all great civilizations fall from within. I imagine that this must be a symptom of such a fall.

I hope those reading this do not share this unfortunate circumstance, but if you do, I strongly recommend that, parent or child, you reach out to your family member, and do everything you can to find common ground, agree to disagree, forgive or apologize. I can't imagine a worse fate than to wake up one day an orphan or having lost a child, knowing you were not only not there for them at the end, but weren't there for them during life.

On a lesser, yet almost as important, related note, there is an article in the September National Geographic about the disappearing bald cypress trees and the swamps in which they live. The truly alarming part of the story is the knowledge that bald cypress trees can live for 2,000 years and more, yet are being slowly wiped out from their native habitat by rising seas and other effects of climate change. In other words, another example of man's destruction of the natural world. 

But, it is even more than that. Because these trees tend to reside in swamps, it is a purposeful eradication. In our arrogance of what we believe to be important and valuable, swampland is down at the bottom of the list, forever considered worthless. Now, of course, we are beginning to realize the importance of these trees and this ecosystem, but it probably won't matter, as the decisions we have been making for the last hundred years may be too ingrained to reverse. 

As the coastal storms become more intense, the rising seas more invasive, the lack of natural barriers more obvious, eliminating the millions of hectares of swamp land for more housing developments and huge agricultural farms, may be one of those under the radar decisions that we regret the most.

Like accepting an estranged relationship with our children with a shrug and an oh well, we communally continue to hide our eyes from the destruction of our environment, as if there is a backup plan.

Perhaps that is the true definition of a declining society, when we casually allow our relationships with our children to disintegrate while continuing our policies of environmental degradation so as to destroy the world in which our grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to live.