WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE

Space is supposed to be the last frontier.  If we want to go “where no man has gone before” we must venture into outer space.  Space exploration, unfortunately, costs a great deal of money and a lot of advanced planning, especially if you want to return alive.  So, it is expensive and dangerous.  It is not for the poor or timid.

The oceans have been charted and most interior land masses have been explored or, at least, plotted through satellite imagery.  This might cause some young people to decide that there is nothing left for them to explore or discover.

They are wrong.

There is one place where no man has gone before that only they can discover.  It is their life.

John Grunsfeld, deputy director at the Space Telescope Science Institute, was quoted in an interview about the future of NASA directed space travel as saying, “NASA doesn’t have a story right now.”  And, he added, “Exploration is nothing if not the articulation of a great story.”

What can be more exciting than exploring, expressing, or articulating the story of our lives – and only we can give this story the excitement it deserves.

Each day and with each little step we take, we walk where truly no person has walked before.  No other person could.  We are unique and our lives are unique, uncharted territories waiting for us to discover them.

Adventure?  What can be more exciting than discovering your first love?  What can be more devastating than to have that person reject you?  The disappointment the Apollo 13 astronauts felt when they had to turn away from their expected landing on the moon and complete a race for their lives to return to earth was crushing, I am sure.  But their training helped them understand that through science and human perseverance they would prevail.  Nothing prepares us for the heartbreak of a breakup.  We have to struggle as hard as any explorer to work our way “back home,” back to a world where things make sense and where we can again look forward to tomorrow.

Discovery?  Our lives are one long expedition to discover what kind of parents we will make, what job we will have a year from now, how we will do in college, when will we finally feel comfortable driving a car, what is the dress code for the event we are going to, and so on.  So many choices, so many decisions.  Those choices and decision determine our lives.

We are assured by parents, teachers and friends that we are not alone.  Yet, we usually feel very much alone.  We are told, “I know how you feel,” but we suspect the speaker cannot possibly know how we feel.  We are slashing our way through a jungle of new ideas and new experiences that will eventually articulate the great story called our lives.  We are walking where no man has gone before.

PIGPIMPLES

I went to see the last of the Harry Potter series last night.  It was OK, but it wasn’t the best of the series.  As is currently the case among Hollywood directors, there was too much emphasis on special effects, leaving my wife, who has not read the book series, wondering at times what was going on.  I wondered myself at times.

The closing scene showed all the principal characters grown up, married and each with several children, at least one of which was making his/her first trip to Hogwarts, just as the eleven-year-old Harry did in the first book of the series.  This started me thinking, always a dangerous thing as my wife will confirm.

I asked myself, “Why must these potential wizards have to wait until they are eleven to get a feel for their undeveloped, but budding magical powers?”  Even in the Muggles world (Muggles are those without magical powers) we know that very young children need to be removed from the influence of the home and their parents and placed in baby care, followed by day care, and that followed by pre-kindergarten so they will be ready to enter the scary world of public education when they turn five.  If they cannot read and write, as well as do simple arithmetic upon starting their "formal" schooling, we fear their lives will be one long futile search for success and happiness.

Hence, my big idea.  Why not start a preschool for Hogwarts students?  I will call it Pigpimples, or PP for short.  Children who demonstrate a propensity for making things happen without any plausible explanation must be potential wizards and would be candidates for PP.  Children around whom things mysteriously disappear could be sent to PP, the same for children with mystery ailments.

While at Pigpimples, children would learn simple magic: three-card Monty, pulling nickels from someone’s ear, “Gotchur nose,” making the end of their thumb separate from their hand, and other slight-of-hand tricks that they can use to earn a living at any carnival in case they bomb out at Hogwarts.

Since I am talking about children too young to attend a campus school such as Hogwarts, we would need to establish a franchise of Pigpimples schools in every community.  Our motto: Every child needs PP.  When the franchise goes national we can have kids PP-ing all over the country.  Every parent then will know if their child is truly a budding wizard or just a “splash” in the PP pan.

WE ALREADY HAVE SMALL GOVERNMENT -- WHY NOT USE IT?

I watched several of the Sunday morning talk shows last Sunday such as Face the Nation and Meet the Press, to name two, and I couldn’t help noticing the number of times one person or another mentioned the need for officials in Washington, particularly the Obama administration, to focus more attention on creating jobs.  Jobs, jobs, jobs.  We need jobs!  We need to put more people to work.  And the government, meaning Washington D.C., is not doing nearly enough to get more people working.

I could not help but notice also the number of times someone mentioned the need for smaller government.  We need to get big government out of our lives.  We need to return to the ideals of limited government our founding fathers envisioned.

Of course, no one wanted the government to stop funding rebuilding the infrastructure of our country by cutting back on roads and bridges projects, or stop stimulating the economy, or stop supporting the dairy farmers, soybean farmers, cotton farmers or some other agricultural field important among the constituents of their state.  Limited government is fine as long as it does not limit my income or chances for career or industry growth.

Then, I remembered, we have smaller government.  We have small government that is (more or less) responsive to local needs and local pressure.  We call it city government, county government, and state government.  Why aren’t we demanding that these governments limit their size and expenditures?  The answer I fear is that we know that cutting back on local government spending means cutting back on local jobs and contracts to local businesses.

 Okay.  Patronage jobs are an essential part of local government.  The people we help elect are supposed to reward their supporters by sending some jobs and money their way.

But why is it that when it comes to creating jobs, we always turn to Washington?

When was the last time you heard a town supervisor or county chair talk about creating jobs?  How many state governors campaign on a platform to create jobs in their state while reducing expenditures, and how many of us realistically expect them to deliver on any such campaign promise?  We hear repeatedly that most jobs in this country are created by small businesses.  Moreover, small businesses as opposed to large nationwide corporations tend to be local -- state and county local or, maybe, regional.  Isn’t this the domain of local (small) governments?  Why do we not expect these governments to do more to stimulate job growth in our locality?

If we truly want smaller government, we should stop always looking to Washington to solve every problem.  Let us instead ask our already small local governments to start doing their job.  Let’s begin by asking small LOCAL government officials (city, town, county, state) to step up and start doing what we elected them for: to exercise the leadership they promised during their campaigns and work together (across party lines) to solve LOCAL problems in a manner that satisfies LOCAL concerns and conditions.

Local government officials are more responsive to local pressures.  After all, they live nearby and cannot so easily put distance between them and their constituents.  It’s time we stop bitching and moaning about big government and start complaining to local elected officials about not doing more to create jobs, stimulate the economy, balance local budgets, and deal responsibly with local problems and conditions.

RLS BAD FOR AMERICA

It is sad to watch how our government goes about solving problems and dealing with national concerns.  When legislators vote strictly along party lines and with the idea of making sure the other party does not achieve success or recognition, we have the present sad situation.  I call it the RLS condition.

Before I explain that last sentence, I need you to play a little game with me.  Imagine that you are Mr. or Mrs. Jones and with your spouse, you have to find a solution to an urgent family problem.  Let us suppose it is a financial problem.  You have maxed out your credit cards, you are behind in your mortgage payments, the car needs new tires, one of the kids need braces, school taxes have gone up again, or some other pressing financial matter.  Regular bills keep coming in while income remains the same.  The two of you need to sit down at the kitchen table and work out a plan of attack – and do it today.

There are really only three options: find additional income, reduce spending, or do both.

That’s about it.  You could get additional money in the short term by borrowing from family, friends, or a lending agency.  One or both of you could look for additional employment, a part time job for instance, but that will only produce income down the road.  Still, it’s an option to consider.  You must address the spending patterns that got you into this mess.  Dad may have to give up golf and mom forego her weekly visit to the hair salon.  Who knows what you will decide.  That is where the kitchen-table negotiations come into play.

Now suppose that neither of you is willing to discuss any solution that requires you to give up anything.  Further, you reject any proposal that does not require sacrifice by your spouse. In other words, if your spouse likes it, you are going to be against it.  Sounds stupid, doesn’t it.

We have something like that going on in Washington as our elected officials grapple with how to deal with the nation’s mounting debt – and it has been the SOP (standard operating procedure) in Washington for far too long, regardless of which party is in power in congress or the White House.

It is the attitude that says, “I want to help solve this problem so long as the solution does not cost my party any political capital.  Further it must make the other party look bad.”  In other words, if the other party is for it, I am going to be against it.

I call this the Rush Limbaugh Syndrome, RLS for short.  Rush Limbaugh candidly admitted after President Obama’s election that he wanted to see this president fail.  Rush Limbaugh is not a legislator.  He is a political pundit.  As such, his responsibility is to say or do whatever it takes to generate good ratings.  Ratings are the coin of the realm for political pundits.  He has followers who share his desire to see President Obama fail and he took a position that honestly reflected those viewers’ feeling.

I admire honesty, but Rush Limbaugh is not an elected official.  He does not vote on legislation.  He does not have the responsibility for solving any of the nation’s problems.  His narrow position on political matters is not what most of us want in our representatives or senators.  You cannot honestly represent the folks back home if you frame your approach to every piece of legislation with the question: “Will this help make the president fail?”  Just as dishonest is the question: “How does the party leadership want me to vote?”

We have too many politicians in Washington whose priorities are: the party, then my reelection, then the nation.

I gave Rush Limbaugh credit for being honest.  I wish I could do the same for most of our legislators.