John W. Malenda

Friends and loyal readers, I will be “off-line” for a couple of weeks but don’t despair, I will return!

We see toddlers in diapers on the beach playing in the sand which contains billions of small stones and shells but no one seems concerned that they are a choking threat. What about our pennies and dimes? Does this too require a US Government recall? There are all sorts of questions raised about specific holiday plants at this time of year and their toxicity but parents seem unconcerned about the house plants that are in the home all year or the outside plants where their children play. Why does it seem that is there no sensible way to deal with our everyday environment? Why do some parents initiate lawsuits because of a button that can be pulled from a doll yet are totally unconcerned about the pebbles in their child’s sandbox? I’m afraid this has nothing to do with protecting children but it has everything to do with greed and the possibility of financial gain from a lawsuit.

Can we believe that manufacturers have just recently started to use lead paint on toys or had they always done so.?

Think about this a bit.

I am quite certain that the hundreds of millions of us adults have played with toys with as much, and certainly more, lead in painted toys than exists today. All toys were painted before plastic was invented. Many toys themselves were made of lead. I, and all the boys I knew, played with lead soldiers and lead cars.

If one considers the technological, scientific, literary and art achievements that have been made in the last 70 years it is obvious that our minds have not been hampered by that lead.

We are only aware of its presence today because we are testing for it.

If a child becomes unruly in a classroom one of the first things that is suggested is testing for chemicals in the blood, specifically for lead. How about the rest of the children in that classroom? They may have as much or more lead in their bodies but they act ‘normally’ so they are not tested.

If one considers the extreme cases of the lead miners or the battery workers and how much exposure it takes to create biological problems and analyzes the duration of exposure and quantity of lead involved then a reasonable attitude might evolve.

We ingest a lot of unsavory material that really has little or no effect on us. If anyone were to look at a drop of water with a microscope from their favorite lake or river where they swim or boat they would never go into that water again.

We are comfortable with our food, water and objects that we handle as long as we don’t know the specifics.

We have out-performed and outlived our great grandparents who played with stones, and sand and unpainted wooden toys.

In spite of our sharp sticks, marbles, buttons, dangling strings and lead paint, we have lived long enough to become a burden to our Social Security System to an extent never anticipated by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In short, if you look hard enough for problems you will find them whether it’s toys, water, food or your neighbor.

“Good fences make good neighbors”Robert Frost

Throughout history fences had been successfully used to indicate the limits of one’s control. Without a distinct marker of some sort, a range of uncertainty exists as to what a person or a country can do at the edges of their controlled property. This uncertainty usually leads to disputes which can lead to violence. In the past if the border dispute was between countries it led to war.

Fences and borders are so specific in their placement that in most areas of the US a plus or minus foot variation can lead the Planning and Zoning Commission to order the removal of an existing building.

In short, boundaries are important and fences are visual indicators of those boundaries.

We put up fences to indicate to the deer that they cannot eat from our apple trees and we make the fences sturdy enough to prevent the deer from crossing that boundary. The converse is true to keep our cow or horse or dog from running loose on our neighbor’s property.

Fences are necessary to keep things in…and to keep things out.

Saudi Arabia is presently starting a $5 billion project to build a wall that is the most sophisticated wall ever built. The purpose is to keep out illegal immigrants and potential terrorists.

Isn’t that interesting?

Consider some past walls:

Hadrian’s Wall was about 80 miles long and was built in 122ad by the Romans across England to keep the Picts from raiding the southern territory. It was built to provide economic stability and was made of stone and turf as high as 16 to 20 feet and manned by as many as 9000 troops.

It was replaced by another, built for the same purpose, the Antonine Wall, about half the length at the border of present day Scotland.

The Great Wall of China, approximately 4000 miles long and said to have been guarded by over a million troops, was built to keep out the Mongols who were raiding China from the north.

The Maginot Line, built in the 1930’s along the French-German border, was less of a wall than a series of forts and obstacles and proved rather useless in a modern war which employs planes and tanks.

The Berlin Wall was started in 1961 to keep westerners and their influence out of East Germany and to keep the East Germans from leaving.

It is sort of the inverse of what is happening between the US and Mexico today. The citizens of East Germany saw the economic advantages available to them in the west but their government would not permit them to leave.

The Roman Empire generally used rivers as boundaries or often inhospitable land features like deserts. One of the major reasons that the Roman Empire collapsed was that it had extended itself too far and along with internal conflict between people competing for power it could no longer control its borders.

What is the reason that people cross borders?

  Probably for the same reason that squirrels cross roads. People emigrate because of discontent, or hunger or to avoid being persecuted (or prosecuted). When people are hungry, poor or live in fear where they are, they move on. This can be simply moving to another patch of woods in a primitive society if it is available or leaving your homeland entirely as happens today. There have been small migrations since the beginning of time as it applied to birds, animals or humans.

The colonization of the western hemisphere saw larger mass migrations by people hoping to significantly improve their lives. These migrations are always prompted by stories returning of the potential for wealth or for freedom of choice of cultural standards or religious beliefs.

Today our southern border is porous. The influx of new people is creating incredible economic stress in our Southwest. People are coming across in hopes of a better life and people are coming across to expand their crime and drug networks. How does one sort out intentions?

The only way is to close the border and attempt to sort out intentions by legalized entry. It’s easier to keep the bear out of the kitchen before he gets in than to get him out after.

Unfortunately we didn’t close the door quickly enough and the bear is in the kitchen and hungry. Now we have to feed him.

Again, fences are necessary to keep things in…and to keep things out.

 ‘Non Compos Mentis’: Zero tolerance

Two students were suspended for ten days this week at Lee’s Summit West High School in Kansas City, Missouri, for allegedly using racial slurs. The students, one of whom is nearly an Eagle Scout, did not use the dreaded (dead and buried) “n-word,” nor did they say anything that was derogatory or racially offensive. Rather a group of students were having a conversation about what knots to use when tying drum equipment when the other “n-word” came up—“noose.” A black student overheard the conversation and told a teacher that he was offended. Clearly, these boys did nothing wrong. This ridiculous incident is yet another example of the “tolerance” of liberals’ beloved political correctness run amok. In reality—unfamiliar territory for liberals—political correctness, which is designed to undermine people’s rights to liberty and freedom of speech, is coming dangerously close to muting all conversation lest it be misconstrued as offensive. We can only imagine the next forbidden n-word.

Village Academic Curriculum: Fighting Sioux

In 2005, the University of North Dakota’s 70-year-old “Fighting Sioux” mascot landed the school on a list of those violating National Collegiate Athletic Association rules by displaying Native American names or images on team items at certain NCAA events. The NCAA claimed that “the time has come to retire Native American imagery in college sports.” Ironically, the NCAA’s headquarters are in Indianapolis, Indiana. In 2006, after the NCAA rejected a subsequent appeal by the university, the school sued them and in a settlement last month, the school has three years to negotiate an agreement with two Sioux tribes. If an agreement cannot be reached by 2011, the university will be forced to find a new mascot. As for the Sioux Indians, they don’t seem prepared to smoke a peace pipe with the school over the “Fighting Sioux” mascot.

“The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)”.

It appears that no matter what we say or do anymore there is someone out there who will find it offensive. What is frightening is that we are no longer dealing with actual words or deeds but the interpretation by an individual of what those words or deeds might imply. A person’s career or social standing may be ruined and without any recourse for correction by someone simply claiming that “….this is what I think that you were thinking.”   

Don’t bemoan your failing memory as you age. It is to be expected and not necessarily totally as a result of age. When people are young, everything is new and interesting. Everyone has observed how small children take things apart to see what’s inside. It is the curiosity of the new experience that fixes our attention.

As we accumulate life experiences most things no longer seem to be worthy of our attention. We do not dwell upon the details of the everyday events. In short, they do not impress us. It is the depth of the ‘impression’ that registers whether the information should be stored or not. We forget things because we have not ‘remembered’ them to start with.

Along with this ‘forgetting’ is the very common problem of not remembering names. It’s similar to what I said above. We have met so many people in our lives that when we meet someone new we don’t know whether they will be of any significance to us so the name given at the introduction does not get stored in our memory banks.

It is only after some conversation that we decide whether that person should be remembered or not. At that point, we remember the face but not the name and we are usually too embarrassed after talking with someone for a half hour to ask them what their name is. To do so implies to them that we didn’t care enough who they are to remember their name. The truth is that generally they don’t remember our name either.

Actually the ‘name/face’ dilemma has some deeper roots than what I just wrote.

Names are a recent addition to the social structure of humanity. Visual recognition is much more important to survival. Every encounter with another human or animal became a matter of survival. If you did not recognize the person coming toward you, your existence could be threatened.

Like it or not, this was the basis of ‘racial profiling’. We as primitive people had to decide instantly whether the other person was of our family, village or our tribe.

That uncertainty is why we are here today. Our ancestors who didn’t spontaneously possess that fear or uncertainty would have no doubt been killed if they could not differentiate between friend or foe.

Today we recognize that the world is a violent place and so we are becoming fearful again for our survival. We look at people and associate color or ethnicity with a new fear.

It is a sad testament to social progress that took so many years to achieve that we find ourselves slipping back into a primitive survival mode.

When I was a kid in junior high school I stocked shelves in a small neighborhood grocery store. The owner, Harry Levine, was a quiet, honest and wise man. I remember him telling me about his coming to America.

WWII had ended that summer and the Russians were occupying Eastern Europe as a reward for their participation in the war.

He said, “This will be very interesting.” He continued, “When I was a young man in Russia many of my friends were excited about the coming revolution. They said, “Comes the Revolution we will be dancing in the streets.”

Harry said that he then said, “Comes the Revolution we will be sleeping in the streets!”

That’s when he decided to come to the United States.

His assessment was not that far off according to Ayn Rand in her book, “We the Living”. Revolution can only occur when there is a large enough group of people who have been squeezed almost to the point of starvation, the point at which they feel that they have nothing to lose.

We are all aware that societies stratify into a small wealthy class, a large middle class of workers who produce the bulk of the goods and services and the poor.

A small group of very poor people can do little to influence historic events. As long as there is a large middle class who are reasonably satisfied with the conditions of their lives, everything runs smoothly.

However, things are not going smoothly at the moment. The bottom tier of the middle class in the US has been sliding into the ranks of the poor.

Unlike most countries in past history, the United States is unique in that there is a system in place that supports the poorest of the poor through social programs. As long as these people are fed, housed and have their medical problems taken care of they will never revolt because they have too much to lose.

It is the middle class, those who have worked hard to raise their living standards and accumulate assets to guarantee their future comfort, who are the most discontented today. They are seeing their home values drop, their savings go into their heating oil tanks and automobile gas tanks and food prices climb.

It is their security that is most deeply affected.

As the middle class is pushed into the poverty strata, they will require social benefits themselves which will add to the demand on available money.

This leads to one of two choices: reduce benefits or increase taxes. Either choice leads to further discontent but raising taxes drives more people into the ranks of the poor which compounds the problem.

There were 36.5 million people in the US below the poverty level in 2006. With rising fuel costs, which also raises the cost of raising and transporting food, the poorest people will suffer the most whether you consider those below the poverty level or those in the lower middle class. Food, heating and utilities take a greater percentage of income for those who can least afford it.

Those under 18 also fare the worst because if they are considered to be in the work force at that age they are probably high school drop-outs with little hope to rise above the poverty level. They have the least working experience so receive the lowest wages.

Discontented younger people are rioting in France as I write this. France experienced serious riots by young people in 2005 also.

Revolution can bring on far greater hardship than exists under present conditions of discontent in most countries. Again I make reference to Ayn Rand’s book, “We the Living”. There are always opportunists willing to step in for personal gain when there is upheaval. Consider the looting that took place during the Watts riots of 1965, Detroit in 1967 and after Hurricane Katrina. These are relatively small localized areas.  Extend that chaos to an entire country and one can see it is far better to avoid the conditions that lead to riots and revolution than try to live with them after they occur.

We have heard over and over that there is no such thing as a ‘free lunch’. We, as a people, are losing our ability to survive on our own. We are all expecting the governments-local, state and federal to supply us with everything to make our lives comfortable. We are becoming dependent on someone else to provide us with all the perceived necessities to make our lives comfortable. The point here is should we expect life to be ‘comfortable’ or should we be satisfied with life being ‘tolerable’? There is a wide range between the two and there is a price to be paid for being too comfortable.

The story below was sent to me over the Internet. I have no idea who the author is and have no way of knowing whether the story is true or not so consider it a parable.

“There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had a few exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the Professor noticed one exchange student who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?” The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up the second side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves and so they accept their captivity. The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/socialism and keeps spreading the free corn in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time. If you see that all of this wonderful government “help” is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!”

That story illustrates what can happen to not just pigs but to any society that becomes too dependent on someone other than themselves. We must eventually pay for the ‘free lunch’. We eventually lose our freedom of choice. If we expect our lives to become too comfortable and too safe the price that we will have to pay is a loss of freedom. Guard rails, fences, paved paths and smooth roads all make us safer but also diminish the excitement of living. We must make rational decisions about how much we are willing to give up for comfort and security. The “Law of Diminishing Returns” must always be considered whenever we undertake any project. How much time, and therefore money, is involved in making the shelf board smoother or leveling our lawns?

Specialization promotes efficiency. More of anything can be produced if a single person can do repetitive tasks. Assuming that all individuals are capable of all things such as hunting, felling trees, making nets, making pottery, chipping flint for knives and weapons etc we know is untrue. Even within the smallest unit, the family, the members specialize.
Consider the most primitive of family units. It would be impractical if the senior male member were to spend his time gathering wood instead of hunting if he had small children to do that work. The same applies to preparing and cooking food, tending a garden or weaving baskets. Each of these tasks is better accomplished by specialists, that is, those most suited to the task by physical strength, experience or age.
As a social group grows in numbers, specialization becomes even more specific until within a small band of families one person may become the flint chipper for the entire group. Because he is engaged in that task full-time, some other member, the hunter, must supply him with food in exchange for arrowheads.
As the group expands more elaborate shelter and protection of its assets much be established. This in turn requires sources of wood and stone that may not be available in the particularly good hunting or fishing area in which they are established. This creates the need for trade of food for raw materials from other areas.
At this point in the rudiments of civilization, agreements must be established regarding the value of the exchanged goods or services. The need arises for negotiators because an interdependence between the groups has evolved such that neither group can continue its standard of living without the other group. If one of the groups involved in this mutual dependence, either through greed or miscommunication, becomes hostile to another group, a breakdown of this harmonious trading relationship can lead to risk of survival to all groups.
The conditions leading to the failure of social groups is thoroughly explained in Jared Diamond’s excellent book, “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”, in which he covers the subjects of resource depletion, isolation from trading partners and weather.
Countries all over the world are in similar peril at the present time. We have grown into such large groups of highly specialized individuals that the majority of us would starve in a very short time because we no longer have the tools nor the knowledge required for survival.
Locally available wood was our primary source of energy for cooking and staying warm. Most of the world’s population live in areas where this source is no longer available. We rely on food that we are no longer capable of producing on our own individual home sites but which must be grown and transported to us.
Today we are heading for a breakdown in trade as a result of antagonistic attitudes between different countries. In primitive societies stone, wood, food and furs were the required materials for survival. Today it is energy, primarily in the form of oil.
The modern world can not exist without, at the present time, oil. (I will deal with alternative energy options in later postings). Two major oil-producing countries, Venezuela and Iran, are teaming up to restrict the US oil supply because of politics. They can damage our economy through both restricting their oil output or by raising the price of oil. At the recent meeting of OPEC they have advocated not accepting US currency for oil.
This might be compared to two tribal trading partners when one says, ” I no longer accept your flint in exchange for our food.” Perhaps the one tribe can get along for a long time without new flint but how long can the other go without food?
When the US blockaded Japanese oil shipments that Japan needed for survival, Japan attempted to destroy the source of the trouble, the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Messing around with someone’s survival is a dangerous game.

I wonder why the majority of people in the US accept the opinions of celebrities and politicians as absolute truth yet distrust what scientists say about the same subjects?

That’s why I am starting this site. I intend to discuss both social and environmental issues and back up my statements with facts.

I have advocated for years that statements concerning major decisions should be evaluated as to their truth before a person blindly follows the advice.

“Who’s telling you what and why?” That is what you should ask yourself whenever you hear or read something that seems illogical or contrary to what you had previously believed.

Scientists, by definition, are seekers of truth. We study the cause and effect of everything that we observe. We want to know the ‘why’s’ of the world around us.

Survival is impossible without making decisions that are valid, that is, are based on a ‘truth’. Decisions that are based on opinion have no validity because opinions are simply that, opinions. Everyone has a differing opinion that has been formed based on family prejudices. We are taught to conform to the values of the family into which we have been born. Here we develop our opinions regarding food, social interaction and fears. We are taught as children that our survival is based on our acceptance of the values of our parents.

As we mature, we learn. We experience and interact with people who have different opinions and we start to change our own home-instilled opinions.

How radically we depart from our original opinions are a function of how persuasive those people are that we encounter. We are taught by our parents to accept the values of our elementary school teachers because these are people who ‘know’. They are educated therefore, we are told, that we must believe them.

Perhaps they are ‘educated’ but they still have opinions of their own and if we question those opinions, we get ‘Ds’; if we accept them, we get ‘A’s’.

In short, if we think for ourselves, we get into trouble.

The same process, except much more so, exists in the military. The person who thinks for himself rather that following orders is labeled a ‘misfit’ and a ‘trouble-maker’.

There is, however, justification for no independent thinking in the military. Military success is predicated on applying the correct estimates of manpower and weapon requirements necessary to win a battle or a war. Winning means survival; losing can mean death.

Going into battle requires an ordered move toward a specific and a single objective by coordinated groups and timing is critical for success. Anyone arriving too soon will either be killed or will alert the enemy to an impending attack. Anyone arriving too late will leave the people depending on his support in a weakened and dangerous position.

There is no room for independent decisions. Orders cannot be questioned, for better or for worse.

So, the question is should we think to survive in society or should we simply do what we are told by people that we trust?

The answer is, “It depends.”