*********************************************************************

A true hero and sharp contrast to our Age of Kardashian

*********************************************************************

Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, died today. His work at NASA, coming with near-death experiences, moved the cause of human exploration of space forward and we all should be grateful to him for that.

But not unlike Sally Ride who also recently died (see: “Sally Ride: Child in (not of) the ’60s”, July 24, 2012), the true character of the man can best be judged by how he conducted himself after his walk on the moon and contributions to the space program.

Neil Armstrong was comfortable in both his suit and his skin, with no need for self-aggrandizement so prevalent with generations born since 1950.

________________________________________________________

Specifically, he was an intensely private man who granted few interviews and did not cash in on his fame as many do nowadays for something as malign as a sex video posted on the internet (think: Kim Kardashian). The idea of a reality show, had it existed back then, would’ve been more alien to him than the lunar landscape he walked on.

This was a man well-grounded in what was right in life and he stayed very much within such guardrails. In short, he was a sharp contrast to many who bought into the culture of self-importance and a me-first approach in life that has bloomed since the 1960s.

The good news is that despite what we may see on the internet or television, there are many people like Neil Armstrong who quietly and nobly contribute to our society. Perhaps that was what gave Mr. Armstrong a placid and unmoving faith in the principled life he led.

It’s fair to say that he is resting in peace.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

The good judgement of politicians is an imperative for the office they seek

*********************************************************************

In the past several days, we have been reminded that just because someone runs for public office, it does not mean they have the most basic requirement for such: good judgement.

A year ago, U.S. Representative Kevin Yoder was on a visit to Israel with other congressman. After a dinner by the Sea of Galilee, he decided to take a dip in such fabled body of water, along with others in his party. The difference between himself and the rest of them is that he decided to wear no clothing. Perhaps Mr. Yoder was so filled by the biblical history of the location he was at that he wanted to immediately immerse himself in the spiritual watering hole without waiting for the proper swimming attire. This is likely not the case, though. The allegations that have emerged show a night of drinking that resulted in his aquatic jaunt. While for the rest of us it need not be said, Mssr. Yoder and all future aspiring congressional skinny-dippers need to hear this: while perhaps not a crime, such shows abysmal judgement, if any at all.

________________________________________________________

Many elected officals think they can lead a life of indiscretion like the Roman emperor Caligula. Such thinking shows they lack the requisite judgement to hold office.

________________________________________________________

Then this past Sunday, in almost an unknowing attempt to outdo the bizarre behavior of Representative Yoder, U.S. Representative Todd Akin, the Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, when asked in an interview about his views on abortion, made it clear that his opposition to the practice was nearly absolute, even in instances of rape, by saying “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare…..If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

His alleged defense by a female’s body to pregnancy in situations of rape is news to all, including the medical profession. If he correctly conveyed what these doctors told him and they are still practicing medicine, they should be taken out of practice immediately as their patients’ lives could well be in danger. But in all likelihood, like any politician who tries to memorize a campaign playbook of soundbites, he probably did not understand nor convey properly what he might have been told, let alone think about the preposterousness of such assertion.

As to his new classification of “legitimate rape,” such takes us into an area of criminal theory that perhaps no one will ever understand, let alone embrace, including Mr. Akin if he gave some serious thought to what he blurted out as he was thinking ahead to the next 5 questions and 7 campaign appearances. The alternative, that he thought out and believed what he said, is worse and paints a portrait of someone who is out of touch with reality and unsuitable for any kind of office given his warped thinking.

But both the Yoder and Akin cases have one thing in common: abysmal judgement in the most minimal sense.

By pulling his Caligula impersonation, Mr. Yoder thought he was above it all and could act on impulse, which he clearly could not. And when confronted with a question on the very serious matter of abortion that the vast majority of people cup their hands around their ears to hear the answer, Mr. Akin either rotely recited bad facts that he gave too little attention to or he gave a position that he thought through but that is untenable with medical reality, let alone what society accepts. That’s not what U.S. Senators do.

There are those in Conservative precincts that have called for Mr. Akin’s withdrawal from the campaign in order to save the possibility of Republicans winning the contested Missouri senate seat presently held by Democrat Claire McCaskill. They reason that Akin remaining in the race only further endangers the chances of Republicans winning the Senate and overturning ObamaCare. This is true as (sic) Senator Sharron Angle and (sic) Senator Christine O’Donnell can attest, if not admit, to the fact that going down in inevitable general election flames is not good for anyone except the other party.

Yet there is also something more at stake here than just this upcoming election and its weighty ramifications on the next congressional session.

Specifically, does this country give bad judgement a pass? If it does, how can we possibly take to task our leaders who promulgate and impose bad policies on us?

These pages, long before they even existed, placed a very high premium on good judgement and equally proportionate penalty on lousy judgement for existing and aspiring public office holders. Two examples come to mind that severely brought into the question the worthiness of the politicians: Bill Clinton and his Oval Office picadillo with Monica Lewinsky and John Edwards and his affair when he was on his way to becoming a major presidential candidate in 2008. Both displayed egregious judgement by people who were at or near positions of great power. There are also numerous other instances that have occurred on both sides of the political aisle so this is clearly not a partisan matter.

Mr. Akin must also realize that the U.S Senate is a chamber characterized as a legislative branch with 100 “mini-Presidents.” It is a deliberative body, as structured by the founders, that is far less mercurial that the House of Representatives. Thus, it is a body of quasi national leaders whose every move and action is deeply scrutinized here and overseas. Every word spoken and position taken must be given with a degree of care and thought that clearly Mr. Akin did not apply and likely will not on future occasions.

Perhaps 150 years ago, on the western frontier, such gun-slinging remarks by Mr. Akin would have been accepted and even advantageous to attaining office. And in all likelihood skinny-dipping would have also been accepted as the Tarzan persona of males was in full vogue. But we thankfully have evolved as a society and the remarks of Mr. Akin and the acts of Mr. Yoder are no longer acceptable.

Both men have displayed that they should not hold public office.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

His rallying cry should be: every time the Obama campaign talks about Romney’s tax returns, they are admitting failure with the economy

*********************************************************************

From the annals of Presidential campaign surreality, the Obama campaign gave Mitt Romney an offer he could refuse. Specifically, campaign manager Jim Messina wrote Matt Rhoades, Romney’s campaign manager, saying that if Mr. Romney releases “five years of [tax] returns,” the Obama campaign will ask for no more.

At first blush, this would seem like standard jousting that can be quickly dismissed. But a more nuanced analysis may indicate that Team Obama may have maneuvered themselves into a box-canyon that they would like to be extricated from, with the help of Mr. Romney.

If Mr. Romney is on his game, as he was last week with the V.P. pick of Paul Ryan, he will stick to his campaign’s initial rejection of such  request.

The Democrats are offering a Trojan Horse when they say they’ll drop Mr. Romney’s personal tax issue if he releases 5 years of them

It is no secret, even amongst President Obama’s most ardent supporters, that the economy is an election Achilles’ heel; something that is best not spoken about. Thus, the President and his surrogates have devised a number of diversionary talking points from the various Republican Wars on Humanity to Mr. Romney’s tax returns.

Ask not only the average unemployed person but any person in the middle class and they will tell you that such matters mean very little to paying the pile of bills on the kitchen table. And it appears the Obama campaign is beginning to realize such and the potential backlash that could result from trying to sucker-punch the electorate into thinking that such irrelevant issues matter to them. Hence, the offer of tax returns with honor. The Obama campaign is likely heading for the doors on this matter but is firing to cover their retreat.

Given such, Mr. Romney should stick by his rejection of the offer as it would only concede that he should have provided such in the first place (although doing so would likely have prevented much of this sideshow). And anyone who thinks that releasing the requested 5 years of returns will quell any further requests also believes that ObamaCare has no adverse effect on the economy (may I sell you some Greek bonds at a premium?). The phrases “the release of the returns raises new questions going back prior years” and “this is not the full picture, we need more” comes to mind when the  MSNBC carnival barkers grab hold of his tax return release.

The best strategy for Mr. Romney is to allow the Democrats to hammer away at Mr. Romney’s taxes. At the end of the day, all Mr. Obama is saying when he talks about Mitt Romney’s taxes is: “I have failed on the economy, now let’s talk about something else.”

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

The global warming debate would have been far better served not by denying the phenomenon but by presenting the unsavory choices to deal with it

*********************************************************************

It’s a stream in the middle of the woods that could make a country boy in a Mark Twain novel envious. Ramanessin Brook in the hamlet of Holmdel, New Jersey, is a meandering, narrow (but not too narrow) creek with trees fallen over it every several dozen feet, un-fallen large trees standing sentinel over it, and a whispering if not timeless sound of water on a mission to flow somewhere….or perhaps nowhere. And most importantly, it is seemingly insulated from the outside world; it is a world of its own, disregarding any other.

Except that it is clearly tied to the rest of the world. Certainly the world we live in that is experiencing a drought.

My family and I started visiting it over the last several years at the prompting of my wife who made it her playground in her childhood.

Last year we went to the remnants of a mill which had become a waterfall. The water was high enough so that there was a rope from the cliff of one shore to swing on and jump into a deep pool. But this year, with the drought upon us, we found no waterfall and a virtual puddle where the deep area used to be. At that point, I suspected that Al Gore’s global warming might have hit given the drought that much of this country is currently gripped in.

Above: A country stream in central New Jersey that Mark Twain would take inspiration from shows effects from the drought; is there a viable alternative to this?

It is hard to disagree with the fact that we have been experiencing an increase in global temperatures over the last 2 decades if not more. And that led me to think about what the alternatives are.

I liked my country stream with its waterfall, to be sure. But I also like my car that burns fossil fuels as well as my house full of appliances that require energy, most of which fossil fuel. So even if we could definitively place global warming at the feet of human consumption, would we wish to sacrifice our standard of living? And this is where Conservatives erred in the global warming debate. I was with my Conservative brethren over a decade ago pooh-poohing Al Gore who was running around warning the world about global temperature increase. But several years ago I realized that even though millions of years ago the entire planet had a tropical atmosphere (something you can’t blame Union Carbide of any other human endeavor on), the earth was clearly in a warming period. To move the conversation along to the substance of the matter, Conservatives should have demurred on human causation and asked whether a change in our lifestyles, that Liberals ostensibly want but may not practice themselves, is what we would tolerate. The answer would likely be a resounding “NO!” After all, trading  our cars in for bikes and going down to the stream to do our laundry would clearly constitute a life-style change for most of us.

Since Conservatives dug in and denied global warming early on, the momentum in the debate is now on the side of Liberals who would have us lower our standard of living and even increase global warming (see: ethanol) all in the name of their ostensible earth-friendly policies.

The time has long come to move the debate from the thermometer to what kind of lifestyle choices we wish to make. Anything else is just…well.. a lot of hot air.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

In picking Paul Ryan as his running-mate, Mitt Romney shows that not only he thinks he can win but he wants to do something when he gets into the White House

*********************************************************************

Mitt Romney’s announcement of  his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate today is a game-changer but not how many would think. By picking someone who is otherwise known as a policy wonk, Mr. Romney has done several things, all to his advantage.

First, he has ensured that no matter how much Democrats try to change the subject to trite issues like Mr. Romney’s personal tax returns or the bad bean burrito he ate at a 7-Eleven late one night when in college, the discussion will focus on issues that affect this country, present and future. Matters like the massive budget deficits and the structural infirmity of Medicare and Social Security will be front and center, as they should be, every time Mr. Ryan speaks in public. This works to Republicans’ advantage as these are problems that must be addressed but which Democrats natively are averse to making tough decisions on and thus try to change the subject when mentioned.

Second, ponder what the vice-presidential debates will look like with an otherwise well-informed and articulate Paul Ryan squaring off against Vice-President Joe Biden. Mr. Ryan only need allow Mr. Biden to rhetorically self-immolate and come in after the laughter has subsided and score some substantive points to show how the Romney position is better than Obama’s.

Which gets to the fact that Mr. Romney picked someone who has intellectual and policy heft, which was clearly lacking in John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin in 2008. Yes, the downside is that Paul Ryan is more susceptible to attack than Mrs. Palin was especially after he unveiled his budget this year which was predictably attacked by Democrats as one of the many Republican wars against the middle class, if not humanity at large. But by raising Mr. Ryan’s positions, it inevitably requires Democrats to enunciate their own policies, which either they don’t have or have failed in the past 3 1/2 years.

Given Mr. Ryan’s heavy-weight status, Mr. Romney has showed that he’s not afraid to surround himself with people who are his equal or better. That’s the sign of a good leader, although we won’t hold Mr. Biden against President Obama as that would be cruel and unusual. Those of us who saw a potential re-incarnation of George Herbert Walker “Un-Dukakis” who picked the relative lightweight Dan Quayle as a running mate can take comfort that Mr. Romney is secure in himself to run his administration and to get things done with talented people like Congressman Ryan without feeling the threat of being overshadowed by his subordinates.

Which gets us to the long-game strategy that Mr. Romney appears to be playing. He could have chosen someone who (arguably) would have helped more in winning the election but he chose to look past November and to his potential administration. Our read is that this is not because he is misled enough to believe he has won the election but it does show his confidence in himself and his message, perhaps a new-found wind to his campaign sails. This is a welcome sign, but clearly he must go on the offensive especially with this new piece of field artillery he has in his political arsenal. Still, this pick indicates an emboldened candidate who will not be as tentative and lackluster as John McCain was in 2008, Bob Dole in 1996 or George H.W. Bush was in 1992.

If there is one possible weakness that Democrats might try to exploit, it is the relative lack of foreign policy experience that both men have. Yet Mr. Obama had none entering the White House and this current administration has had, to put it charitably, a less than stellar foreign policy record since it came into office. So such criticism can be swept aside, especially if Mr. Romney assembles a strong team of foreign policy advisers.

Finally, it can never be forgotten that a vice-presidential pick usually has little or no effect on the prospects of a Presidential campaign. If it did, George H.W. Bush would have started his retirement in 1989 and not 1993.

Still, for what many people call the first Presidential decision made by those who win the White House, Mr. Romney has not only done himself but the overall campaign a good thing by picking Paul Ryan.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Thanking our readers (all 5 of them)

*********************************************************************

A year ago The Daily Yap published its first article. As stated at the time, “this publication is intended to provide ideas, and hopefully the seeds to at least some solutions, in the ongoing debates we have over issues we face together as a society.  We do not expect to “stand athwart history, yelling Stop!” Far greater minds than ours have done such before us and continue to do so.”

We believe we have fulfilled such promise.  From politics to beach observations and everything in between, we have covered it all. And the past year has provided a rich vein of events to write about.

We will continue to ensure that this publication keeps true to its stated promise to “further provide ideas to the discussions that we have today of various social, political and other issues.” We will also ensure that our moniker, “Provoking Thought,” is a mission we achieve with every submission.

As this historically noteworthy year continues on, we look forward to further robust thought and discussion.

Meanwhile, thanks to our readers (all 5 of you)!

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Our gotcha culture aims its guns at the Olympiads

*********************************************************************

There is a saying in media: if it bleeds, it leads. In other words, consumers of news are most interested in gore: injury resulting from intentional violence or even accidental happenstance.

Recognizing this appeal to the human desire for the indelicate, talk show hosts in the 1980s started to conduct shows that were little more than updates to the Roman Colosseum where Gladiators slugged it out. Thankfully, these were verbal and not physical maulings of guests who were dimwitted enough to partake in such. These forums put American culture in over-drive when it came to seeking out and mass-broadcasting the haplessness of people. “Gotcha” was the new way to sell newspapers or whatever weapon system the coarse material was being launched from. And the paparazzi picked up on such and applied it to public figures and to a level of extreme culminating in the death of Princess Diana.

Today’s Olympiads must now display skill in avoiding rhetorical pies, along with the sport they trained in

But as with most wrongfully motivated actions, limits don’t exist or are quickly eviscerated for the inappropriate goal.

This appears to be the case after Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen broke the world record in the 400-meter individual medley last Saturday. After, a BBC commentator immediately noted her sudden improvement in form and raised the specter of doping. On Monday, World Swimming  Coaches Association Executive Director John Leonard characterized her performance as “unbelievable,” “suspicious” and “disturbing.”

Voices of reason have since explained that such accusations are the result of Chinese athletes’ history of doping. Additionally, such accusations have been asserted to have been motivated by a sense of nationalism on the accusers’ part, resulting in a resentment of China which is becoming a superpower in many ways including Olympic sports.

Still, in the good old days, even when nationalism was strong and countries were suspected of doping, few others would raise the allegation of illicit substance abuse; they would wait for testing to the extent such existed. But now, where winning is achieved at all costs and, in this Age of Kardashian where discretion is a relic from pre-1960, the modus operandi is to immediately lurch to an accusation of illicit drug use for competitive advantage. Even if proven untrue, as in this case, the person accused suffers a permanent diminishment of their accomplishment, at least in the eyes of the public.

The good news is that most athletes who participate in the Olympics will not materially care about such accusations, especially as there is rigorous drug-testing in place. But the bad news is that the focus on great athletic accomplishment is diluted and energy needlessly expended on groundless innuendo, which benefits no one.

Perhaps there should be a new Olympic event in which the athletes try to avoid actual pies being thrown at them, as they are doing such now with the rhetorical ones.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Discovering the virtues of a good, old-fashioned spanking

*********************************************************************

As a child of the 1980′s, I grew up on the modern beliefs, right or wrong, of how to raise kids. To not have a car-seat for my kids has been ingrained as tantamount to child abuse, despite the fact that when I was a pre-teen in the 1970s my contemporaries and I were practically part of the roof-rack or a second hood ornament.

Thus, my tendency was to avoid corporal punishment (formerly known as “spankings”) at most costs, even though I somehow knew, not too deep down, that the current state of human evolution calls for deterrence via physical punishment, for both adult and child alike.

So when faced with a disobeying child, I would do as the post-1950s expert advise:

• I gave my kids choices: But they pocketed the good options and disregarded the bad ones and thus, chose to continue the un-televised hostage crisis.
• I gave them a “timeout”: But it only allowed them to re-group and re-arm for a more potent counter-attack.
• I got someone else involved: I called the the American Association of Parent-Child Arbitration and had an arbitrator hear our case. Within 10 minutes the arbitrator determined that my wife and I were lousy parents and advised our children of some  good lawyers who could sue us and get them an early retirement.
• I warned them of consequences: I told them that if they did not do their homework, they ran a high risk of not doing well in grade school which would hurt their chances of getting into a good high school and college and thus hurt their earning potential someday. Their eyes seemed glazed over as I was explaining this at which point they reverted to their bad behavior.
• I picked my battles with them: But before I could fight the first battle, I was completely cornered and had little or no room to fight from.
• I set limits: But they picked up the limits bar and moved it.
• I stated my request in the positive: But they positively ignored me.

Finally, I applied my hand to their posteriors in an un-tender manner. Immediately, I had the complete focus of their minds and law and order was fully restored.

Despite being passe and politically incorrect, perhaps there is a beneficial place for corporal punishment in our lives.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

If you can access the net outside 8:30 am-4:30 pm, private industry had to have created it‏

*********************************************************************

In a now-infamous speech President Obama made recently, he gave credit to the government for not only individuals’ various successes but also informed us that “government research created the internet so that all companies could make money off the internet.” Mr. Obama has since sobered up and backed off this Al Gore position.

But being an open-minded person who wants to believe his President, I wondered if perhaps the government did produce what has been a wildly successful tool in today’s society. So I pondered what the internet would be like if sired by the government.

President Obama claims government researchers invented the internet

If the government invented the internet:

• you could only access it between the hours of 8:30 to 4:30 on weekdays, no holidays nor weekends.
• it would take 30 minutes before you could access it, on a good day.
• once given access to it, you would have to fill out 17 forms, many of which are well-hidden in a bureaucratic thicket (think: USAJOBS.gov).
• once on the web, you would have to pay a tax…err….penalty…err…fee, especially as the computers being used get gold-plated pension and medical (hardware/software maintenance) benefits as they are unionized.
• time would be limited on the internet (experience: any public library) as the government only knows rationing (could anything other tan tax revenues and spending be limitless?).
• An internet using point-&-click? Nope. Think DOS and get ready to master the tab key (don’t worry, ObamaCare would’ve included treatment for carpal-tunnel syndrome)
• Even though you might get booted off of the internet at a most inopportune (and productive) moment, fear not as it was justified: you would have been reminded that you used your “fair share” of the web.

Given that my internet experiences are far different from the scenario above, I can safely (and thankfully) conclude that President Obama and (sic) President Gore are incorrect about who mid-wifed the web.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

While many women were burning bras and taking mouths full of birth control pills to exercise their independence, Sally Ride empowered herself through education and career

*********************************************************************

Sally Ride, the first female astronaut to go into space, died yesterday. While she will be remembered by most for being the first female astronaut in space, her other accomplishments were far more significant.

Born in 1951 and thus coming of age during this country’s national nervous breakdown known as the 1960′s, she attended high school on a scholarship. In addition to being interested in science, she was a nationally ranked tennis player. She went on to attend Stanford University, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in English and physics along with a master’s degree and a Ph.D in physics, while doing research in astrophysics and free electron laser physics. In short, while many of her contemporaries were committing acts of “self-empowerment” like burning bras and practicing free-range sex, she truly empowered herself through education and self-improvement.

She joined NASA in 1978 and was on the crew of the space shuttle Challenger in 1983, placing her in the history books.

Sally Ride’s most significant accomplishment was getting children interested in science

But her greatest and most long-lasting achievements, as she would likely agree, came after such flight. Specifically, she was named to the presidential commission investigating the Challenger accident and headed its subcommittee on operations. Following the investigation, Ride was assigned to NASA headquarters in Washington, DC, where she led NASA’s first strategic planning effort, authored a report entitled “Leadership and America’s Future in Space”, and founded NASA’s Office of Exploration.

After NASA, she worked at the Stanford University  Center for International Security and Arms Control. During the mid 1990s until her death, Ride led the various public outreach efforts in cooperation with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and UCSD, which permitted middle school students to study imagery of the Earth and moon, thus likely getting countless young people interested in science. She was also the president and CEO of Sally Ride Science, a company she founded that creates entertaining science programs and publications for upper elementary and middle school students, with a particular focus on girls. Ride wrote or co-wrote five books on space aimed at children, with the goal of encouraging children to study science.

While it is clichéd to state that a person could do worse than emulate Sally Ride’s commitment to science and inspiring future generations to such avocation, it is a truism that one could likely not do better than Ms. Ride when it comes to enriching society and its future.

-I.M. Windee