Happiness In America

“Instead of obsessing over the self-actualized perfected person, maybe we should care more about equality, community, vulnerability, and empathy. Maybe we should get out of our heads and be more present in the world around us.”

– Carl Cederström

I’ve come to the belief that if there is one single, overarching human innate hope, desire and want, it is to be forever happy. But happiness is both nebulous in understanding – just what is happiness, really – and ephemeral if attained – like most things, it is a short-lived, something always happens that erases it.

Happiness is very subjective, each of us thinks we think we know what would/does make us happy, and we spend all our energy and lives on the quest to realize it.

In my last post, “Where We Look For Happiness” (Sept. 1, 2018), I said that happiness is both a biological and psychological compulsion, and that what we think makes us happy is a learned thing – not only by trial and error by our own efforts, but also by observation and adoption of what apparently makes others around us happy, and that this dualism is never more evident than in the early teen years (especially in middle school) with the inner conflict of finding balance between seeking to be happy as an individual and at the same time finding happiness in being accepted as a member of one’s peers.

Where, I observed, unfortunately many never find the answer to that conflict. Especially among we Americans. It seems that, with everything we’ve accomplished, with the bounty of things we have, with all the opportunities we’ve made available to ourselves, we – collectively – are not a particularly happy people, nor are we a contented people.

According to be latest ranking by The World Happiness Report, as reported by The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/03/16/this-is-how-the-u-s-stacks-up-against-the-worlds-happiest-countries/?utm_term=.9d5a54794f41), the US isn’t even in the top ten, we come in at 13th of 126 nations, which isn’t exactly bad, but what’s worse, when measuring overall well-being (contentment with things as they are), we are 85th (between Chile and Slovenia).

To be American can mean many things, but if there is one thing that can define us, it’s that we are materialists – consumers – Capitalists. Which is not a bad thing. But how Corporate America has used marketing against us is – to be happy, to fit in, means to have the latest, newest thing, be it stylish clothes, smart footwear, mobile phone, car, or whatever; they have used psychology to manipulate us, individually and collectively.

In a Vox article by Sean Illing (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/4/17759590/happiness-fantasy-capitalism-culture-carl-cederstrom), Cederström gives a quick historical analysis of what happiness has meant to people over the ages, beginning with the Greek philosophers (the pursuit of simple pleasures), which was replaced by Christianity (self-sacrifice and the postponement of gratification to the afterlife), which was replaced by the Enlightenment (where “happiness became a fundamental right, something to which we’re entitled as human beings”), and ultimately the realization of that “fundamental right” in Market Capitalism. Cederström believes that our values of “liberation, freedom, and authenticity…[have been] co-opted by corporations and advertisers, who [have] used them to perpetuate a culture of consumption and production. And that hyper-individualistic culture actually makes us much less happy than we could be.”

And, given the evidence that we are not as happy a people as other people in the world are, maybe we should collectively re-think why we are not so content with our lot. Which leads back to Mr. Cederström’s thought in the quote above.

Maybe we Americans should stop emphasizing on what would make us individually happy and start looking for what makes everyone happiest – “maybe we should get out of our heads and be more present in the world around us.”

But is that too much to ask? Probably. We would no longer be the America we or the rest of the world would recognize.

Not that that would necessarily be an unhappy thing.

– Bill

Where We Look For Happiness

“No thing, and no one, can make you happy except you. Don’t hinge your happiness on anything [or anyone] outside of yourself.”

― Akiroq Brost

Happiness is a multi-faceted concept; what makes people happy probably equals how many people we’re talking about; everyone’s idea of what it takes to be happy is quite subjective – what I need to be happy might just anger you and what matters to you might be totally, incomprehensibly meaningless to me.

But where and how did each of us come to decide what makes us happy? Happiness is more than mere contentment with what is (although one could make the argument that contentment should equal happiness, because things could be worse). Generally speaking, we are happiest when something good happens above our usual daily existence or assuages – lessens or replaces – the pain or discomfort of some (perceived maybe, maybe real) negative that happens to us.

But, where does this sense of happiness come from? Are we innately programed to seek happiness or is it a learned thing? Certainly, to a great extent, there is an unconscious, biological need to feel good, to be sensually satisfied, like through food, drink, sex. Equally, there is an inherent psychological need to belong, to be accepted as being worthy, being “like” as opposed to being an “other”, an alien or outcast.

We know that the sense of “self” begins at an early age, when we first realize we are an individual among others. This emerges around the age of one and is more fully developed by age two (some authorities say three). I know from both my sons that it was well developed by age two. They don’t call it the “terrible twos” for nothing, and by that age every parent is tired of the incessant cries, “Mine, mine!” or the tantrums thrown when they don’t get their way – proof that the child knows he/she is a person, a “self”, who demands acknowledgement as an individual with her/his own wants, seeking their own sense of happiness.

And when these demands go beyond the basic cry for physical needs (like food), it can be said that most of their needs are psychological – comfort, “feel good” things, like acknowledgement, affection and other “happy” feelings. Some need little, some much more than most. And those who need more than less figure out how to manipulate the adults around them to get what they want. And the things they want are just that – things that give them an emotional and physical sense of happiness, be it a favorite blanket or toy, or the touch, a cuddle, to let them know they are loved. And those wants continues to grow – and expand in scope – as they grow.

It’s something they learn, not just by trial and error but by observation how they can fulfil their wants, what will make them happy.

You may want to read The Atlantic magazine article, “Why Kids Want Things” (https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/08/kids-materialism/568987/).

Joe Pinsker, a staff writer for The Atlantic on families and education, tells how that need accelerates around entry into middle school for the twelve/thirteens’. Anyone who has or has had a tween/teen knows how important things – possessions – are to them, especially those that are the same as those of their cohort; they feel they need them to be happy, to be accepted into the peerage because of the fear of derision and rejection if they don’t have them. Stylish clothes, smart footwear, a newish mobile phone and the list goes on. (Which raises the question: Why all the demand to be seen as an individual while, simultaneously, wanting to look, speak and act like everyone else? Well, it is the age of discovery, how to be different, yet belong at the same time. And, unfortunately, many never find the answer to that question.)

The article is a good read for any parent and I recommend it to any new parent, especially if they would like to instill in their child that there is more to happiness than mere possessions. The caveat here is, look at yourself first:

“[P]arents who act in ways that value things, parents who make a lot of sacrifices to get a lot of things, parents who get a lot of joy from buying things, parents who talk a lot about things—they tend to have adult children who act the same way.”

Of course, sometimes children grow up to be the opposites of their parents. Still, it isn’t a sin to want things, but it becomes problematic on how you see them.

Are they the end of the means, or the means to the end, in the search for happiness? Are possessions just a small secondary part of your overall happiness, or are they the primary source of that happiness?

Perhaps you come from parents that were excessively materialistic and that resulted in your belief that amassing things equates to happiness.

For the sake of your child’s ultimate happiness, or even if without children of your own where your attitude to materialism is being closely observed by those closest to you (nieces and nephews, for example)…

You may want to think about what makes you happy and where you should really look to find your happy place. For your sake and theirs.

– Bill

What Little League Can Teach Us

“I am a member of the team, and I rely on the team, I defer to it and sacrifice for it, because the team, not the individual, is the ultimate champion.”
― Mia Hamm

I came to love Little League baseball when both my two sons began playing at age six. Over their “career”, until they aged-out, I first coached, then managed, then (leaving it to more talented coaches and managers) became the ever-present parent fan in the stands.

It was about that time that I discovered the Little League World Series that is aired on TV every August (it’s on now) and have it on my calendar; I have faithfully watched the two weeks it’s on for over 20 years.

Why? Not just because it brings back happy memories of watching my sons playing, but because of what it isn’t – it isn’t about focusing only on their star players the way professional sports seems to. In Little League, while some players are obviously better than others, every player on every team gets to play, every game.

That’s never been better illustrated than by the team from Hawaii this year – on each player’s shirt back, where normally their name is above their number, there’s this:

WE>ME…my team is greater, more important, than just me. It’s all about the team as a whole, win or lose.

Wow! Too bad that isn’t true in Everything America.

Especially in our politics.

– Bill

California – Hot, Hot, And On Fire

“There’s hot time in the old town, down town tonight.”

– Lyrics from Hot Times In Old Town Tonight, by Mississippi John Hurt

So far in 2018, as of today, Fresno (CA) has officially had (unofficially, my patio thermometer has registered may more) 39 days over 100°F, 30 of them consecutively (a new record, 2005 had 21). And more are predicted for this coming week.

Our summers are hot; from May to September every year this San Joaquin Valley city historically averages 32 days with temperatures of 100°F or more, and it’s not unheard of to have one or two days in May and October. 1984 had a total of 63 days that year, a record we probably won’t break this year, but who knows, it’s still possible.

Add to that the dozens of 98/99° days – which technically are not 100° but sure as hell feel like it – and one has a most uncomfortable summer experience here. Miserable, really. Especially when consecutive without a break, without any rain whatsoever, no breeze relief, and dangerous-to-your-health ground-level amounts of ozone in the evenings.

Physically, mentally, and emotionally debilitating. And that’s why I haven’t written and posted anything since July 9th, after all this heat got under way. Not because there wasn’t anything to write about, I just couldn’t find the mental wherewithal to compose anything. (But I feel guilty not posting something for you, my dear followers, so, here’s something).

Those who can take the time and can afford it head for the cooler coast. Those who can’t, “shelter-in-place” in their air-conditioned homes. In normal summers, many head to the nearby high country of the Sierra Nevada mountains over the weekends to beat the heat.

But not this summer. Because they are on fire. Infernos, actually (even with tornados made of fire!)

At one count 20 (I believe it’s now 17) wildfires burning simultaneously in California, including the largest in state history, 100 miles north of San Francisco (that has so far burned an area larger than the city of Los Angeles, an area of some 500 square miles), as well as the one around (and now within the boundaries of) Yosemite National Park to the east (forcing it’s closure and visitor/employee evacuation).

14,000 firefighters are doing battle in the state. That number includes local, state and federal firefighters, state prison inmates, firefighters from neighboring states, and even 53 from as far away as Australia and New Zealand. Hundreds of US Army personnel are being trained and outfitted in Washington state to join in by next week. Best guess estimates are that it will be another two or more weeks before they are all contained – let alone extinguished.

Thousands of homes – whole neighborhoods – and businesses burned to the ground. Lives have been lost.

And here in Fresno, while we aren’t threatened by any of the fires, we suffer the results – smoke-filled air so thick and visible it looks like fog, at times, full of particulates to be breathed into our lungs. The air quality is so hazardous, local health officials warn us to stay indoors 24/7, with windows and doors closed and air-conditioning on. The only two things that could remove this is rain (which never happens in the summer) or wind (but that would only result in updrafts into the surrounding mountains and flame the fires).

It’s so bad that two days ago, Fresno’s air quality was worse than Beijing, China (which officially has the dirtiest air on Earth).

I’m not a particularly religious man (though I do have my religious beliefs), and not one that sees biblical omens in every catastrophe, but I am thinking about how God said the next time he destroys mankind it will be by fire, and a passage in the book of Jeremiah, 7:20: “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: My anger and my wrath will be poured out…on man and beast, on the trees of the field and on the crops of your land—and it will burn and not be quenched.” Not sure if the unquenchable burning refers to just his wrath, or if it is a literal burning of trees, field, crops, man and beast. Maybe both.

I find no biblical evidence to suggest that The End is near (that’s a whole other discussion) or that California is in any way more deserving than anywhere else to feel God’s wrath (it’s debatable).

But if the fire and smoke and destruction we’re experiencing is a foretaste of the future…

Excuse me while I fall to my knees.

– Bill

My Love-Hate Relationship With Lawns

“The average lawn is an interesting beast: people plant it, then douse it with artificial fertilizers and dangerous pesticides to make it grow and to keep it uniform – all so that they can hack and mow what they encouraged to grow. And woe to the small yellow flower that rears its head!”

― Michael Braungart

I have a love-hate relationship with lawns that started back when I was ten, when my father decided I was old enough (or big enough) to take over the once-a-week task that he wasn’t overly fond of – mowing our yard.

Until the age of ten, he and his family lived in the District (as natives refer to it, as in Washington, the District of Columbia) in a series of homes in the 20/30’s that were like any other urban city’s of the day (and even today), with front door steps going straight down to the sidewalk along the street, until the family inherited property and a house in suburban Virginia that included, naturally, a lawn. He was the one delegated to cut it as his father worked seven days a-week during the Depression (four days in his usual job as a fireman, three days as a police officer, both in the District) and his two brothers were too young and small for the manual push-mower. But that lasted only two short summers until his dad died and he had to help augment the family income with an after-school job (the mowing fell to the younger brothers).

After he married, they living in an apartment, and when I and my oldest younger sister came along, he (probably at my mother’s insistence, I’ll wager) bought a home in the suburbs and he, again, had a lawn to cut. I guess, when I turned ten, he felt if he did it at that age then so could I. Thankfully, by then, he’d traded in the old manual push-mower for a nice walk-behind gasoline-powered one.

That’s where the hate part began. I didn’t develop the love part until three years later, when one of his brothers moved to England on a long term job assignment and invited me to come and stay a spell with him – dad said I could go if I earned my own airfare and he’d match it as spending money. And at some $500 each, it was a deal and I humped my butt that summer before, cutting every yard in the neighborhood I could contract for, weekly. Unfortunately, once again back home, even though I never renewed servicing neighbor lawns, ours was back on schedule, and my hate of it returned.

I had a respite when I finally left for college, then moved to California and apartment living, even after marriage. It wasn’t until our two sons were of the age that it was decided we needed a house, and the hated job of lawn mowing came with it. It wasn’t until my oldest turned ten that I decided it was his turn to take over (even now, almost forty, a life-long apartment dweller, is he thinking of buying a house – naturally, with a yard, but with three boys – two more than capable of handling a mower – I don’t think he’s worried about having to do it for at least the next ten years).

Of course, once both of my boys grew up and moved out, the onerous task fell back on me and, now after all those years since and now at seventy, I’m about ready to fork-out money to pay someone else to do it. Which I’d prefer not to do (I can still handle the job) but it’s taking me twice as long as it use to, and there comes a point where my time and lessening energy reserves are worth more than my money.

And as I now look out my front window and realize it’s time to mow yet again, it has led me to thinking about lawns, in general. I mean, why? Why do we bother to have them at all?

Think about the quote above.

Lawns are kinda stupid, if you think about it – the time, effort, expense (gasoline or electricity, pesticides, fertilizers, mulch and whatnot). And the water (something in serious, and I mean dire, shortage of here in the drought-stricken Southwest).

Sure, I love a well landscaped, maintained green expanse; it looks beautiful. And green space is vitally important to the environment and climate. (I’d rather see and enjoy it with more city parks or on the golf course, where someone else has to maintain it, even with taxes and greens fees.)

But I hate everything it takes to maintain a nice, green lawn; the effort and time, of course, but it’s especially the pesticides and fertilizers, which are by definition poisonous, which leech into the underground water supply we drink from (and I’m not convinced any municipal water service can completely remove all of them), that I object to (which is why I don’t use them, as my lawn’s look will attest to). But, more importantly, some seventy percent of all water use in suburban homes is used outdoors on lawns and gardens. And water costs money, payable monthly to the city.

No wonder so many who can afford it are having their yards ripped out and installing xeriscaping, while the many that can’t merely allow their yards to die and go yellow.

Gives a whole new meaning to California being called the “Golden State”.

– Bill

Politics and Religion – Same-Same – And Why Americans Are Giving Up On Both

“The most important [thing] is philosophy…interpret[ing] the law and not mak[ing] the law.”

– Jamil Jaffer

Jaffer’s quote was about picking someone to replace Justice Kennedy, who announced his retirement from the US Supreme Court yesterday. His exit ensures this to be the chief news de jour for the next few months to come as the President mulls over who he wants to replace Kennedy and until the Senate approves his choice (barring something horrific, like a major terrorist attack or war, that grabs the headlines and our attention).

But let’s look at the quote above. Like all things – especially words – when parsed, one needs to decide what meaning they confer. That is philosophy – dictionary defined as “the rational investigation of truth”. With respect to politics and law, and our Constitution, it is for each Justice to “interpret”, to find and to explain the meaning – the intent behind the words written by the Founding Fathers – as she or he sees it. And when a majority agree on meaning, then the Constitution (and hence, all law) means what they say it means.

Put another way, any consideration of what the law means today is based on the individual political “philosophy” of each Justice’s belief of what the Founding Fathers believed (their philosophy). Since these Fathers have been dead for some two hundred years, we can only take what they wrote within the context of their times. And, as the world has changed radically in so many ways over the last two hundred plus years, who can say with any surety that they wouldn’t say something different today?

The philosophy of the conservative is that jurists should only apply the law as originally written and the philosophy of the liberal is that jurists must make law applicable to today’s circumstances in light of societal change from the distant past.

Nonetheless, the Court “interprets” and “makes” law based on their “philosophy” of what they think the law should be, even if conservatives or liberals sometimes would have it otherwise. Hence, conflict.

And the same can be said about religion. The parallel is absolute, and the quote above is equally applicable.

Religious conservatives (regardless of what religion) believe that their holy writ must be interpreted and applied today as it was written (no matter however many thousands of years ago), whereas religious liberals maintain it must be interpreted within the context of the time it was written and either ignored or adapted to be applicable to today (because there is no way of knowing how the founding father(s) of the religion would think today, given all the changes that have occurred since then). Hence, conflict.

And Americans are getting fed up with the conflict between the conservative and liberal extremist divide in politics and religion, and are bailing out of participating:

• 39 percent of Americans identify as independents, more than they do as Democrats (32%) or as Republicans (23%). This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling (http://www.people-press.org/topics/political-party-affiliation/).

• Only 64 percent of eligible Americans registered to vote in 2016. Of that number, 40 percent of them didn’t vote. That means only 25.6 of all eligible and registered voters voted (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/).

• 40 percent of the unregistered say their aversion to politics is a major reason they don’t want to vote, and 35 percent say voting has little to do with the way real decisions are made, compared with 20 and 19 percent of registered but infrequent voters, respectively (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/06/why-are-millions-of-citizens-not-registered-to-vote).

• A growing share of Americans are religiously unaffiliated…the religiously unaffiliated (also called the “nones”) now account for 23% of the adult population, up from 16% in 2007 (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/).

• Of the religious, roughly three-in-ten U.S. adults (29%) now say they seldom or never attend worship services, up from 25% in 2003 (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/13/what-surveys-say-about-worship-attendance-and-why-some-stay-home/).

• Of that number, 22% are opposed to organized religion. They may hold certain religious beliefs, but they are not currently taking part in religious practices (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/).

• And among Millennials, it’s gonna get worse (https://religionnews.com/2018/06/26/why-millennials-are-really-leaving-religion-its-not-just-politics-folks/).

An increasing number of Americans are seeking “the rational investigation of truth” and don’t find it in the extremist philosophies of either pole. People don’t like either-or dogma, be it liberal or conservative, don’t like being told what to believe, what to do, or how to act by those who claim to be the anointed know-it-alls ready to condemn those who think otherwise.

The current state of politics and religion (different but the same) in America today is turning people off, and they are giving up on both.

– Bill

A Reflection on Introspection: “That’s just who I am.”

“The problem with introspection is that it has no end.”

– Philip K. Dick

I am often off-put when, having asked someone why they behaved or said something I (and I know others around them) find disconcordant – abrasive? mean-spirited? tactless? – with what use to be normal social behavior, and get the answer, “That’s just who I am.”

What can one say to that?

So, unless what they’ve said or done is so off-the-wall, so utterly inane (by most people’s understanding), I won’t challenge them with the response, “Have you ever thought why?”

Because maybe the have and are happy with it, and I don’t want to provoke a discussion (read: argument). Or maybe they haven’t, and I don’t want to initiate a discussion (read: patronizing – “Let me show you where you’re wrong.”)

I think the later position – they’ve never really given any deep, introspective thought to why they do or say some things – is probably closer to the truth. Behavior (which includes speech as well as physical action) should be based on premeditation – sufficient forethought and inner deliberation before the act. Obviously, in the heat of the moment, all of us at times will say or do something stupid. And that’s excusable if followed by an apology.

But, “That’s just who I am” is not an apology. It is a self-serving excuse for bad behavior and shows a contemptuous uncaring attitude towards the other person and their feelings.

It also tells me that that person probably never takes the time to reflect, introspect, consider and mentally debate within their own mind, the “why” behind what they think and how they behave the way they do.

Introspection takes aloneness and quiet solitude. Things in short supply in the hectic world of work and family demands on our alone-time. And some people don’t want alone-time, they are uncomfortable being by themselves, they need to be around other people at all times. For those that do demand “me time”, all too often their alone-time is filled up with the mindless busyness of tv, video gaming, a hobby or something else. Not that any of these time-fillers are bad in themselves, it’s just that they are just that – time-fillers.

And introspection takes time, time for thinking out one’s self beyond superficiality, to really know who and why one is and how to express it to others with something more than, “That’s just who I am.”

Time that most can’t or won’t take. And even if they’ve tried, they find it tedious because it has no end – there is always some new thing to think about, something new happening or may happen, that requires a deeper consideration (“What do I think about that? How should I deal with it?”) than simply waiting and knee-jerking a response when and if it does arise, and justifying it with, “That’s just who I am.”

I suppose it can be said it’s just as bad to over-think things as it is to not think at all, but I believe in the Boy Scout motto, “Be prepared.”

I’d rather have a premeditated reason through introspection – no matter how much time it takes, ‘though it may have no end – as to what I’ll say and what I’ll do when it involves others.

But, “That’s just who I am.”

– Bill

Feeling Ashamed

“That concentration camps [existed, and]…there [was] considerable difference[s] in the treatment of their inmates… [all were established by a] totalitarian regime…under the pretext of ‘national security’…[for the] unrestricted and arbitrary domination of [the] stateless and refugees.”

― Hannah Arendt

In the quote above, Hannah Arendt was speaking about the Nazi concentration camps throughout Europe during WWII. But it is apropos, vis-a-vis America’s immigration policies, today.

The Nazi “concentration” camps obviously differed as night is to day to our “internment” camps for our Japanese citizens in that war. And our “detention” camps today for illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are not in any way otherwise comparable, except in the intent and results in the use of concentration camps (in Germany’s case then) to remove, and (in our case today) to keep out, “undesirable” peoples from assimilation into the preferred society.

These “others” were then, as are they today, demonized as enemies to national security – as murderers, rapists, criminals of all stripes, burdens on society, even as “infesting” “animals” – falsely, through the use of propaganda to gain public support for the administration’s actions.

Trump and his ilk either knows no history or is merely indifferent to the lessons it teaches, which is allowing it to be repeated, albeit in smaller and less inhumane measure.

Our new immigration policy is tribalism, pure and simple. Read my post “Tribes Redux” (Dec. 1, 2016).

Trump has obviously forgotten his Irish ancestors who, in search of a better life, came here during Ireland’s potato famine.

And while they, at the time, were considered and treated as “other” and subject to the same false propaganda by the “preferred” society of that day, as he is doing to the would-be immigrants of today, they were nonetheless allowed entry and citizenship.

Because our past policies of inclusion (that made America that “shining beacon” for the world’s tired, poor, and oppressed) we still believed in.

Where would he be today if his immigrant forefathers had been put into a concentration camp upon arrival, then jailed as a criminal, only after to be sent back to Ireland?

One would think that he’d feel the humanitarian shame of the Nazi concentration camps or of our Japanese internment camps, or how children are being torn away from and separated from their parents in today’s immigration and asylum detention camps.

But maybe he doesn’t feel any shame.

I’ll close with my last statement in my post “Hypocrisy in America Today” (Feb. 16, 2017), about immigration:

“If things continue to go in the direction we are going, it will be hypocritical to claim we’re a ‘Christian nation’ (“But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” – 1 John 3:17). I am not a prophet, I have no divine revelation, but I do worry about Jesus’ warning about punishment if America reneges on its promises and duty to our fellow man.”

– Bill

“Illegal” Immigrant Children Get To Go To Camp!

“I married a woman who loves to camp, and I am what you would call “indoorsy”… My wife always brings up, “Camping’s a tradition in my family.” Hey, it was a tradition in everyone’s family ’til we came up with the house.“

– Jim Gaffigan

I am greatly fond of the Great Outdoors and enjoy driving through or even hiking through Mother Nature and all its beauty. I even enjoy sleeping there overnight – seeing stars by the billions (unlike the mere hundreds we city folk normally see, if we’re even that lucky), the smell of a campfire and pine trees…and all that goes with it.

But I’m no fan of tents – they are an ordeal to set up and take down, they leak when it rains, unless they’re huge there’s no room for cots or to even stand erect, sleeping bags are restrictive to movement in your sleep and either too hot or not warm enough, whatever is on the ground outside finds its way inside (dirt, plant debris and all the creepy-crawlers), and having to secure foodstuffs in a secure outdoor metal box to keep raccoons and bears at bay.

Maybe because I grew up in a non-camping family; my mother detested the idea and my father simply stated that he’d had all the camping outdoors – in the jungles of the Pacific during WWII, thank you very much – to last a lifetime. But I did my share of tent camping in the Boy Scouts. As a young boy it was fun. Then I grew up and it wasn’t so much.

Yet I married a woman whose family loved to tent camp. Who says opposites don’t attract?

No sir, if you want me to be a happy camper in the woods, I require something more than a tent. Preferably a cabin with all the amenities. Or a proper camper with some semblance of comfort – off the ground to keep the creepies out, a sheeted bed, weatherproof, icebox and stove, and something I can just move with no hassle if the neighbors next to me vex me with their loud voices and/or boombox music, all night drinking party, or if they look like characters straight out of the movie “Deliverance”.

The only concession I’ll make sans cabin is having to use the public facilities – those reeking, grossly unsanitary cesspools that pass as “restrooms” – unless I can find a tree with privacy (for “#1”) or hold it (for “#2).

But that’s me and my take on tent camping. Maybe the thousands of children caught all by their lonesome, entering the US without an accompanying adult, will have a different take on it.

You see, it was just announced that, because there are so many of them (11,000+), the government hasn’t sufficient, proper shelters to place them in. So the White House is proposing to erect “tent cities” at various military bases in the state of Texas (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213026379.html). It will prevent “vulnerable kids to fall into the hands of traffickers, officials said.” I would assume so, surrounded by a few thousand armed military.

And then there are those kids that accompany their parents (or other adult), all together seeking asylum. Current policy is to cull the children from the adults (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/07/politics/illegal-immigration-border-prosecutions-families-separated/index.html) – “If you don’t want your child to be separated [from you], then don’t bring them across the border…” Separated indefinitely. No word on where they’ll be going. A shelter? A tent?

Still, the kiddies will probably be better off than their parents (if you can overlook their separation anxieties). Illegally crossing our borders is a crime that the government is now doubling-down on, punishment-wise, and jailing offenders rather than just sending them back home. Except, there aren’t enough jails to hold them. And those who arrive at the border seeking asylum? There aren’t enough detention centers.

So now it’s proposed to put the overflows of both in federal prisons pending adjudication of their status, if they’ll be sentenced to jail and then deported, granted asylum and entry, or denied entry and sent back to their country of origin (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/06/08/immigrants-federal-prisons/).

What a conundrum. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Both looking for a better life. Where do we draw the line, if a line is to be drawn?

On adults, it’s one thing. On children?

It gives a whole new meaning to camping.

Not in the Great Outdoors.

But in a military stockade.

– Bill

A Birthday Thought

“Do you count your birthdays with gratitude?”

― Horace

“Happy Birthday!” they say.
And, “Don’t you look good!”
I don’t know how I possibly could,
But I’ll accept it anyway.

Today, at three score and ten,
Looking in the mirror, I blink.
“Who the hell are you?” and I think,
“That’s not the face I knew back when!”

Sagging skin no longer tight,
Weather-worn, and with hair so gray
My looking good was so yesterday,
Now to me my visage is a fright.

But as bad as all that may be
I think to myself, “Looks better than dead,
I guess I do look pretty good, as they said,
So Happy Birthday to me!”

– Bill