"EXTRAORDINARY"

The English language is a marvelous vehicle for expression. Its massive vocabulary exceeds all other languages in no small part because of the immense volume of technical terms which have originated in the English speaking world. It is worth remembering the number of nations, such as Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, have enriched the vocabulary. Immigrants to these nations added their own thinly disguised words to the English lexicon.

Also, the English speaking world has never guarded the language. As is all too obvious in modern times new words gush out with only the mildest and ineffective protests from purists. Restrictions on other languages, much like the restriction to enforce Ciceronian Latin, prevail in some fashion. The French Academy, for instance, has guarded against the taint of foreign contamination in any form since the time of Richelieu in the early seventeenth century.

We understand that idiomatic expressions defy sense, logic or other linguistic forensic analysis. We do not, however, regard the word “extraordinary” as idiomatic. We also firmly grasp “ordinary” to mean simple, plain, mundane or other expressions of mediocrity. In an almost Platonic way the English language is rich with nuisance to express degrees of lesser or greater. The prefix “extra” almost always is a superlative that elevates something to a higher level. If this is true, should not “extraordinary” convey the impression that something “extraordinary” would describe something contemptibly low.

WHICH WAY IS EAST?

Orientation program or orientation period are commonly used phrases which almost everyone understands as a period and process for becoming acquainted with a new situation. Orient, as a root of several words, flows freely off American tongues, but it usually relates to the phrases above or Oriental food, Oriental rugs, Oriental art or Oriental furnishings. Oriental is everywhere in America, while it’s opposite, Occidental, seldom occurs in either spoken or written communication.

Traditionally, being “Oriented” meant knowing the compass direction for the East. The assumption was that knowing that direction provided a firm locus for discerning every other direction.

From colonial times residents of America had a strong sense of The North, The South and particularly The West, which offered adventure, wealth and freedom. There was no reason for the shore hugging colonials and later American citizens mentioning The East, where most of them resided. Only people in The West talked about The East.

The East was America and the United States. Large communities, many of which became towns or cities, emerged as elsewhere in the world along protected areas of the ocean’s coast, in favorable spots along rivers, or at intersections of significant roads. With the exception of Washington, D.C., American cities in the East emerged without master plans. The same was even more true for roads, which generally followed the course of least resistance. (For centuries in some mountainous regions of the Middle East road builders would entice a mule to climb a rugged terrain and carve a road in the animal’s course.) Wild animal trails and Indian paths often defined the best way to traverse areas in Eastern America. That resulted in numerous curves in the roads to avoid nature’s obstacles and limited the necessity for excavations and bridges.

My early life in the western part of Virginia accustomed me to roads with abundant curves and at least as many hills and steeper grades. An automobile trip to Richmond at the age of eighteen made an indelible impression on me, as east of Lynchburg I could see miles straight ahead on the road we traveled. There were plenty of gentle hills, but virtually no curves.

Easterners almost never mention the points of the compass when giving directions. They typically say something like “stay on this road for another five miles and turn right at Jamison’s store for another three miles. When you get to that small white church on your left you will see the place you want on the right.”

Moving to South Dakota for my last three years of college required a reorientation based on an awareness of the compass. Even within the symmetrical grids of towns and cities all directions contained compass points without any mention of the Eastern standbys of left and right.

Unlike in the East, most of the West settlement came into existence fairly quickly. Populated areas, as well as the broad farm and ranch lands, resulted from plans rather than haphazard evolution. The flat prairies, which began in Western Ohio, made the grid structure of the Midwest possible. The fact that the United States government, often in conjunction with the railroads, controlled land sales and distribution, allowed those entities to design and control land usage and configuration.

In the East one only needs the fundamental knowledge of the difference between left and right. Out West one needs to be well oriented in knowledge of the four major points of the compass.

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN

From earliest time humans believed they were under the influence of an invisible force or forces. Many believed these ethereal forces were their ancestors, or anthropomorphic gods, or the Great Spirit. Belief in these unseen forces was invariably accompanied by the conviction that they were under their all-seeing scrutiny. Furthermore, the surveiling beings stood in judgment over those they surveiled. Humans behaved knowing the observing entities rewarded acceptable practices and punished those they deemed forbidden.

Consequently, humans constantly tempered their behavior in hope of conforming to acceptable activities. Their entire societies evolved into assuring conformity. Rituals, sacrifices, emblems of those they revered, and the development of sanctified individuals or a priestly class manifested their belief.

Fear of individual or societal disaster was probably the primary motivation for their actions. There was no escape from the wrath of their supernatural overseers if they transgressed acceptable behavior. In time, most societies moved from the belief in short time earthly reward or punishment to belief in eternal repercussions. Eternal, like infinite, is difficult to grasp, but fear of eternal torment and the possibility of eternal bliss had an undeniable impact.

Comprehensive secular law evolved in modern times to encompass punishment for almost all possible transgressions. Legal systems have essentially replaced religious institutions and belief for administering punishment for misbehavior. The only retribution comes from the law if it can catch and convict an offender. So, the escape from punishment is as simple as avoiding the law. It ain’t sin or prosecutable if it isn’t seen.

AMERICAN BARBARIANS: Domestric and Foreign

Nations and empires fall, perish or become absorbed for reasons. One seldom blames them if they perish or become absorbed through overwhelming force. But “falling” connotes failure through avoidable mistakes with accusatory opprobrium. No one, for instance, will blame Atlantis for perishing in an earthquake or Denmark, Luxemburg or Norway subsuming to Hitler’s forces.

But, lo, the Roman Empire, the mightiest state and culture, suffers untold criticism for “falling” from the works of Gibbon in the eighteenth century to the present. Its demise has become the oft cited example of the fate powerful nations might suffer if they do not change their ways. For the last fifty years, warnings that America is on its way to destruction when significant changes occur in its mores and untraditional behavior. Such observations seldom ascribe Rome’s demise to economic, military or other major factors.

An entity as vast and complex as the Roman Empire required numerous elements to become dysfunctional and destroy the empire. That, in fact, happened, but all of the debilitating malfunctions occurred over an extended period of time. The Roman Empire that fell was notably different from The Roman Empire that evolved majestically over decades from its beginning as the Republic of Rome. Romans in the earliest years defined a culture, a law and a sense of their individual and collective identity. Their basic values and policies were practical and fair. By whatever means they devised laws and practices that could apply to all people. People in surrounding areas admired and accepted the principals and practice of the core entity of Rome. None Romans could become Romans with all the rights and privileges of the original Romans simply by accepting and upholding Roman law and culture. Accepting their responsibilities and obligations was central to enjoying the peace and stability of Rome.

A certain level of conformity was and is necessary to create and maintain a viable society. It is misleading to think all citizens of the Republic of Rome and the Roman Empire looked, acted and thought alike. Yes, they had a symbiotic diversity. But, they believed and accepted the same core values. Jews and Christians, for instance, were not persecuted for their religious beliefs but for their unwillingness to conform to Roman law, which included paying at least lip service to the Emperor as a deity. Problems from the Jews and Christians were little more than pimples on the body of Rome, despite what Gibbon said. Also, it is doubtful the great thinkers of Ancient Greece believed in their pantheon of gods, but accepted them as a necessary nuisance.

The real dilution of Roman society and body politic resulted from the massive influx of Germanic barbarians from at least the fourth century onward. Although many performed good services and rose to significant positions of leadership, most did not know or understand the basic original Roman covenant. For most of them Rome was either a haven of safety or an opportunity to plunder or some combination of both. The spoiled Romans were too self-absorbed to realize how fully they had allowed unintegrated aliens to dominate vital societal functions.

Barbarianism is not confined to a particular ethnic group, race or religion. It basically means “stranger” or perhaps, more accurately “outlaw”. Additionally, barbarianism coveys unwillingness to conform to prevailing mores and behavior, through ignorance or overt rejection.

Untold millions of people have entered the United States in recent years with no knowledge or respect for the fundamental principals of American law or society and many with no intention of becoming citizens. Their projected rate of procreation indicates they and their offspring will soon constitute an enormous proportion of the American population.

Perhaps homegrown barbarians constitute as great a threat as those who arrived from foreign lands. Very likely there presently is more ignorance of American history and ideas than any time since the beginning of the republic. Some choose to remain ignorant. The lack of education of American teachers encumbered by supervisory regulations and personal agendas infuses misguided and counter cultural ideas and behavior. Entertainment with the widest appeal is also often contrary to traditional values or perhaps no values or value. Metaphorically, America is “no longer your father’s Oldsmobile”. While few could believe it, General Motors, a stalwart of the American economy, will no longer produce Oldsmobile in its new role as a subsidiary of the United States government.
****************************************************
“If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.” Thomas Jefferson

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Hasan al-Banna, who was one of the most influential figures in modern Egyptian and Islamic history, invigorated adherence to Salafiyyah Islam and led the nationalist effort to expel British influence from Egypt. There was a direct connection between al-Banna and the earlier Salafiyyah pioneers in Egypt. He was educated and then taught in the schools Rashid Rida established. He edited Rida’s magazine, al-Manar, from 1939 to 1941. With a grounding in Islamic and Western knowledge he became a primary school teacher in 1927 in Isma’iliyyah on the Suez Canal. His continued relations with associates in Cairo, however, assured that he would not become an isolated and obscure provincial.

There was nothing auspicious about him and six others establishing a chapter of the Hasafiyyah Sufi brotherhood in Isma’iliyyah in 1928, because al-Banna had been a member of that Sufi order as a teenager. The small group which originated to rectify the problems of Islam in their locality very quickly evolved into the Muslim Brotherhood (Jamiyat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimum), the most important political-religious organization in modern Egypt. New chapters developed and al-Banna moved its headquarters to Cairo in 1933. The simplicity and honesty of the Muslim Brotherhood attracted a large membership and the rapid creation of new chapters. Safe estimates place its membership at half a million in two thousand chapters by the time of al-Banna’s death in 1949. This is not an accurate measure of its influence, since many who avoided the risk of membership supported its activities.

The expulsion of Great Britain from Egypt dominated al-Banna’s activities. The presence of the British was also a religious problem, however, since the weakness of Egypt’s Islamic society made British occupation possible. The Muslim Brotherhood adopted a policy of education, political activism, and social welfare to meet the immediate needs of its members. A wide spectrum of Egyptians soon regarded the Brotherhood not only as the best means of expelling the British, but also the best source for spiritual and physical security.

In the Salafiyyah tradition, al-Banna said “The Quran is our constitution.” This theme and his insistence that traditional Islam was the only legitimate foundation for a viable Islamic society, could lead to the misconception of al-Banna as a cultural xenophobe. While he only accepted sources of Islamic law in the Sunni tradition, he openly acknowledged the acceptability of non-Islamic knowledge and practice in certain areas. The British presence in Egypt was the only thing which upset Al-Banna more than the widespread belief among his countrymen that Westerners alone had the answers to modern problems. His message urged Egyptians and other Muslims to familiarize themselves with the heart of their religion and use its rich and comprehensive approach to human needs as the guide for creating a strong, modern society built upon an Islamic foundation. He maintained that Islamic teachings encompassed almost everything any society needed in any age. His confidence in Islam led him to assert that Islamic societies could selectively adopt non-Islamic answers when a thorough investigation proved no Islamic answer existed. There was the additional stipulation that Islamic societies should reject anything which directly conflicted with Islamic principles.

The Muslim Brotherhood evolved as a secret underground organization into a political force most other politicians, including the monarchy, courted. Its formidable publications, role in strikes, demonstrations, and even assassinations, appealed to many just as the provision of education, religious guidance, food, medicine, housing and a meaning for life appealed to others. While some militant elements engaged in activities al-Banna did not approve, he exercised a level of control that belied his title of “Supreme Guide.” He proved to be an accomplished politician who allied at one time or another with almost every Egyptian party or group. Branches of the Brotherhood emerged in Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and Palestine in an era that secularism dominated. Its strong emphasis on social justice appealed to many who could not embrace the secular, even atheistic, solutions other groups proposed.

The movement which began totally in the open soon adopted an underground approach to avoid suppression. It perfected the use of small cells which early Arab nationalist movements found effective. The small units had the main virtue of limiting damage because authorities could only learn the identities of the five or six people any member might have to divulge under torture or other pressure. Initially members came from lower level government workers, junior military officers, small merchants, teachers, and artisans, but urban working class membership provided the formidable numbers it enjoyed after 1945. From its earliest days it opened schools and mosques, but it soon acquired clinics, factories and businesses. In essence, it constructed a largely self-sufficient society parallel to the Egyptian society which the government administered.

While it was not a political party, it engaged in widespread political activities. Al-Banna advised the leadership of the Free Officers Society on organizational matters and shared political objectives with them while it was still a clandestine movement. Increased anti-British sentiment in Egypt after 1945 gave the Brotherhood and other groups hope of expelling the British. The Brotherhood’s armed element proved relentless and effective in the Palestine war of 1948 and never acquiesced to the truce Egypt and other Arab governments accepted. The government finally outlawed the Brotherhood on December 6, 1948 for its intensified role in demonstrations and strikes and general political effectiveness in collusion with a spectrum of other groups from communists to fascists. A Muslim Brother’s assassination of the Egyptian Prime Minister three weeks later led to the secret police assassination of al-Banna on February 12, 1949. The Brotherhood’s strong organization and important role in society, however, negated the Guide’s assassination and the organization’s legal dissolution. It would play an increased role as opposition increased against both the government of King Farouk and a continued British presence.

The Free Officers’ coup of July 23, 1952, which initially appeared favorable to the Brotherhood, soon relegated it to an inconsequential role for nearly three decades. The Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) recognized the importance and popular appeal of the Brotherhood. They did not dare infringe upon Brotherhood activities when they cavalierly abolished the Wafd and other political parties in 1953. The young officers, who were a group of unknowns, had no popular support as their intentions were unclear. The apparent leadership of General Muhammad Neguib, whom the Brotherhood trusted, was their best hope of retaining their position. The RCC’s obviously secular approach to altering society soon became apparent to the Brotherhood, which also disapproved the terms of the treaty the RCC negotiated with Great Britain in 1954. A Brotherhood member’s attempt on Nasser’s life on October 26, 1954 signaled the end to an uneasy relationship with the RCC. Six Muslim Brothers died on the gallows and the government again outlawed the Brotherhood, which returned underground in Egypt and moved its headquarters to Damascus.

Nasser’s popularity began to soar in Egypt and the Arab world by the summer of 1955. His unique form of Arab nationalism and Arab Socialism soon swept the region. Secular Nasserism rendered minuscule every other possible answer to problems in the Arab world. The RCC even co-opted Islam as an issue through creation of the International Islamic Congress (IIC) in January 1955. The RCC was not willing to say that Islam was unimportant or irrelevant to modern problems, but it made it clear that Islam would serve the regime. As the IIC framed revolutionary Egypt’s relations with the international Islamic world, Islamic institutions within Egypt, including al-Azhar University, became instruments of the secular government. Islamic laws, issues, or principles had nothing more than occasional lip-service importance. The exhilaration which accompanied Nasserism in the 1950's and 1960's hypnotized a region which had not experienced triumph for centuries. Even defeats such as in the 1956 Suez Canal war seemed like victories to people who had been unable even to compete. Adoption of this approach in the Zeitgeist of the era did not require a rejection of Islam. Secular Nasserism seemed so obviously right. It seemed compelled to reject most of the past as it propelled the region into the future. Muslim and Christian Arabs alike envisioned full liberation and fulfillment of their national destiny under Nasser’s leadership. Arab regimes, especially the monarchies, were as inimical as the West. New and modern socialism seemed the hope for the downtrodden underdeveloped nations. Islam almost inadvertently suffered since it was not only old, but the “reactionary” regimes, which were allied to the West, acclaimed their Islamic identification.

The juxtaposition of Muslim Brotherhood and RCC in Egypt was innately explosive as the first could accept nothing less than Islamic and the latter could not accept anything less than total agreement of its means and goals. Their differences were not as apparent when they cooperated marginally in opposition to Farouk’s regime. Anwar Sadat was one of the main links with the Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutub was the one of the main links to the Free Officers. Brotherhood members killed Sadat in 1981 and the RCC hanged Qutub in 1966.

*************************************************************************
From: The Modern Middle East; Emory C. Bogle; Prentice Hall Publishers, Upper Saddle River,NJ;1996

WHAT IS PALESTINE

Confusion about Palestine derives in no small part from the fact that Palestine had neither political nor geographical definition prior to the twentieth century. It still does not. There was never a Palestinian state. Whatever Palestine was and wherever it was, generally depended upon individual interpretation. Different portions of the general area had some kind of designation as "Palestine" during the centuries of Roman and Byzantine rule. As part of these empires the function of the areas variously delineated as "Palestine" changed haphazardly, just as the boundaries did, to accommodate local rulers and administrative needs. Beginning with the era of Arab-Islamic rule Palestine was considered part of Bilad al-Sham or Greater Syria.

Jews of the diaspora preferred "Eretz Israel," Land of Israel, and eschewed the use of the term Palestine that did not recognize their claim to the land as their gift from God. Western Christians, who fought crusades to liberate it from Muslims, generally referred to the region as the Holy Land and actually held a great deal of the region as the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, not Palestine, for two centuries.

The people who lived there had little reason to think of themselves as Palestinians until the beginning of the twentieth century. All of them were Ottoman subjects and for centuries any specific identification was usually confined to family and religious affiliation. The predominantly Arab population knew they were not Turks, but since most were Sunni Muslims, they historically did not differentiate between themselves and their Turkish fellow believers. In addition, until the twentieth century there was no significant Arab nationalism with which they could identify. The roughly 15 percent Christian Arab population preserved both their freedoms and limitations through compliance with Ottoman traditions. They, too, had no viable alternative identity, although the Christian western nations interceded in behalf of all Ottoman Christians throughout the nineteenth century. The situation of the smaller Jewish population was similar to that of the Christian Arabs, except there was no Jewish state anywhere to protect or succor it.

Zionists had the clearest concept of the area the Christians called Palestine. For them "Eretz Israel" reached from the Sinai peninsula to the north central Euphrates area east of Damascus; the furthest extent of King David's conquests about 1000 B.C. No Israeli state, before or since, equalled David's brief territorial expansion. No Israeli state of any kind existed from 135 A.D. to 1948. But the halcyon borders in David's time were the perimeters most Zionists envisioned as the land the Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised them as a "national home." The League of Nations mandate seemed to imply that Palestine, indeed, extended to somewhere near the Euphrates, because Article 25 referred to "territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern borders of Palestine."

Britain's creation of the Emirate of Transjordan in 1921, therefore, was a major blow to Zionist plans. Many, however, never altered their goals and most continued to regard Transjordan as an integral part of their patrimony. But, in fact, the British had defined Palestine for modern purposes as the land east of Egypt's Sinai peninsula, south of French mandatory Syria and Lebanon, and west of Transjordan along the west bank of the Jordan River straight southward to the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Regardless of previous attitudes, the indigenous population within these new borders rapidly assumed the identification of "Palestinian." While many Palestinians before this time might have accepted the label of Syrian, French control over Syria and British control over Palestine made identification with Syria less viable. Some Palestinians did, however, increase their hope for a Greater Syrian Arab state at the end of the mandate nightmare. As the King‑Crane findings and other evidence indicates most Arabs in the region envisioned an affiliation with Damascus in the absence of their Turkish overlords. No Palestinians had a sense of being Lebanese and, in fact, most regarded Lebanon, like Palestine, as a part of Syria. Palestinian Arabs had no sense of affiliation with Transjordan and its dusty capital of Amman. The sparse population of that emirate was, after all, primarily bedouin nomads, while the Palestinians were mostly farmers and town dwellers. Affinity with Iraq was equally untenable as it was hundreds of desert miles to the east and less well developed than the western Levant.

Nearly half of the 10,000 square miles of Palestine is barren and unable to support substantial population without extraordinary efforts to supply it with water. Like the area to its north on the eastern Mediterranean Sea, most of the coastal area of Palestine is fertile and extends eastward to the northern Jordan River valley in the east. In this area large‑scale farming of a wide variety of crops, including citrus, is possible and lends itself to the use of the most modern machinery. The central highlands are rocky but provide a favorable condition for grapes, olives, and small‑scale farming of grains and vegetables. There is ample water for a modest population that generally must rely on hand tools and animal power to cultivate the crops. The Jericho region in the Jordan River valley, which is the lowest place on earth, enjoys a tropical climate that is particularly good for the cultivation of dates and bananas. From just east of Jerusalem to the Dead Sea is a rugged wasteland that can sustain a handful of nomads and their flocks. The Negev desert, which constitutes nearly 40 percent of modern Palestine, stretches south of Beersheba to the Gulf of Aqaba. Though arid, it produces a considerable amount of grain and sustains a surprising number of nomads and their livestock.
*************************************************
From: The Modern Middle East; Emory C. Bogle; Prentice Hall Publishers, Upper Saddle River,NJ;1996

INSHALLAH

Christians of major denominations and smaller divisions alike, often say that something “is God’s will”, “God works in mysterious ways” or “His will be done” in reaction to dramatic events such as death. They also frequently speak about “God’s plan”, which implies belief that everything happens according to the Maker’s design. Generally, Christian theology, while acknowledging God is all-seeing and omnipotent, does not endorse a deterministic interpretation.

Muslims have a more pronounced attitude on the role of God in unfolding events and believe that everything is under God’s guidance and control. This is certainly the case on the part of more traditional Muslims. They submit to following God’s law as defined in the Quran and the teachings and behavior of the prophet Muhammad. Assuming to know more than that about God’s plan is a major apostasy. When speaking about something that might happen in the near or far future they will invariably say “Inshallah”, which means “God willing”. While it is unusual, people have been killed for failing to mention that disclaimer when speaking confidently that something specific would happen at a specific time.

Having studied Islam extensively and been among Muslims countless times over a few decades engendered a strong awareness of this practice. I understood it academically very early in my contact with Muslims. In time it made an indelible impression on me to regard thinking or saying “Inshallah” in the appropriate circumstances. Not doing so is very presumptuous. Perhaps becoming older, wiser and more aware of the fragility of life itself and fulfilling plans increases understanding of uncertainty.

Some regard this Islamic practice as a means of avoiding commitment or building an escape clause into a promise or pledge. In some cases that might well be true. Others consider the utterance of the word as a strong indication of niggardliness among a people who customarily had little regard for punctuality. Supposedly, President Kennedy asked an Arab diplomat if the word was not similar to or the same as the Spanish word “manana”. The Arab is supposed to have responded “Yes, but it does not convey the same sense of urgency”.

You will read this, “Inshallah”.

EMIL: A GREAT AMERICAN

Emil was born in Nazareth, Palestine in 1946, where he attended a Catholic school with a British curriculum until almost the end of the fifth grade when he had to withdraw from school to work. Interestingly, he had learned a strong foundation in algebra, plane geometry and philosophers such as Plato. He managed to get a student visa to come to the United States in 1968, but did not have financial ability to take many courses and was deported. He returned a few years later and worked in a service station and construction.

In Palestine he fantasized about life in the U.S. from reading The Reader’s Digest. Life there could be wonderful and provide freedom. His school had a large banner of Patrick Henry’s famous statement of “Give me liberty or give me death”. His comment about that reminded me that the major slogan of the 1936 Palestinian uprising against the British and Zionists was “no taxation without representation”. Living in America became Emil’s passion and goal. Even with America’s unfavorable policies toward Palestine he passionately talks about how great America is and has been to him.

He is a handsome figure of a man whose features have become stronger with age and with his full head of wavy salt and pepper hair. He is almost a carbon copy of his uncle Farah, the deceased last carver of Christian tombstones in Nazareth. Farah’s face was so strong that I was able to sculpt his face quicker than anyone else I have ever portrayed. It was easier, as well, because I was so familiar with Emil’s face.

As Henry Higgins said in My Fair Lady about Alfred P. Doolittle, Emil is “a natural philosopher.” He has a natural instinct to search for truth. Abstract ideas, a love of words and an inclination to increase his vocabulary comes easily for him. A Christian, his knowledge of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is remarkable. His grasp of politics is strong and he welcomes the opportunity to discuss the relationship between theory and practice. His use of language is imaginative and discerning. He is an artist in stone, bricks and tile in his profession as a masonry contractor. In short, it is a joy to drink coffee and dine with him for hours at a time

His recent discussion of a major epiphany for him in 1969 reminded me of an encounter I had with a Palestinian freedom fighter (fedayeen) the same year. His nom de guerre was Samir Al-Hindi and he had been waiting at the Allenby Bridge to kill someone who had not appeared. So, he commandeered my car, driver, guide and me to take him to Amman. I had just accomplished the near impossible feat of crossing back into Jordan after a trip to the West Bank, which was under Israeli occupation. He unleashed a loud and vitriolic tirade against me as a citizen of the United States during the entire trip. But it might have calmed him some when the local Jordanian army commander, whom I knew, heard about me being in the area over military communications and invited me to tea at his command post overlooking the entire Jordan Valley. Jordan and Israel still bombarded each other with artillery for several hours each day across the Jordan River two years after the Six Day War ended. Jordanian troops and PLO fighters were in every nook and cranny of the terrain for ten miles east of the Jordan River.

By the time we reached Amman, Samir had warmed up to me and said he would like to see me the next day. He gave me an extensive tour of the PLO’s presence in Amman by taking me to various small fedayeen cells in that city as well as to their headquarters. Conversations with the fedayeen were candid and revealing. At that time the PLO shared power all across Jordan with King Hussein’s government. Military roadblocks were everywhere, jointly manned by Jordanian soldiers and PLO fedayeen. Being with the PLO then and on a few other occasions during this pivotal time was instructive. We spent several hours at a restaurant one night where he bombarded me with questions about life in the United States. Toward the end of our session he revealed that the purpose of his queries was to learn how his life would have been if he lived in the U.S.. He was certain that his commitment to the PLO cause at that time would lead to his early death.

Emil got to live the life in the United States that he and Samir Al Hindi dreamed of living.

GOLD

Gold! For most Americans that magical and mythical metal is something the extravagantly wealthy use for ornamentation, while the unwashed might only commune with that exotica when buying a little fourteen carat wedding ring. Asians from the Middle East eastward traditionally use gold much more extensively and most are aware of the vagaries of its price. Americans, generally, could not care less about gold as a commodity than about pork bellies and artichokes.

Recently we are bombarded with advertisements for gold as the only means of preventing the disappearance of our personal wealth. This is not significantly different from the much maligned position of seventeenth and eighteenth century mercantilists, who conventional thinking believed maintained that only gold and silver constituted wealth. Certainly by the beginning of the eighteenth century the mercantilist approach was far more sophisticated than that, despite what Adam Smith said. There is no denial, however, that the pursuit of precious metal accumulation was a strong motivation for all aspects of economic activity.

Having written a master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation on mercantilism provides me some license to address the subject. While I could have justifiably presented an entire course on this subject, I never did. In fact, one cannot teach any history course effectively without considerable attention to the prevailing economic theory and practice of the time.

Pity anyone who tries to explain the prevailing economic theory of the contemporary United States. Attack upon capitalism is more successful than it has ever been. Lack of understanding of economic theory in the general population is no small part of anti-capitalist achievements. Ironically, almost every college student now and from at least the middle of the twentieth century received a strong smattering of Marxist theory and likely read The Communist Manifesto, while few of them, including Economics majors, ever looked at a page of Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which is supposedly the Bible of capitalism.

For the moment, gold is our subject. Why not, as it is hovering around $1000 an ounce. An ounce of gold is about the size of the smallest pieces of chocolate in a Whitman’s Sampler. That equals a lot of peoples’ monthly mortgage payment, a couple car payments, their annual veterinarian bill, or the accumulated cost of going to the beauty parlor for a year. The increased price of gold is unrelated to its intrinsic value, of course, but reflects the decreased value of the American dollar.

How many shares of Ford or General Electric can one buy with the required investment in a little chunk (morsel) of gold? Having seen our retirement funds in conventional stocks evaporate, it is easy to agree with gold hawkers that gold has “never been worth nothing”.

If your piggy bank is big and full enough, you might crack it open and buy a fragment of gold. It will retain some value and take up less space than any piggy bank.

THE NATURE OF MAN AND SOCIAL CONTRACT

Addressing the fundamental nature of humans should be rudimentary to crafting human institutions. While such a responsible posture might be ideal, most societies emerged without significant planning or thought of what they might become. Human societies muddled through. Small ones very likely remained much the same as when they began and followed their traditions. For many different reasons some societies expanded and adapted to the vicissitudes of their experiences with multiple choices for governance. Small and large societies had in common that their existence and structure occurred without a plan.

By the seventeenth century most European states had developed into something close to being nations. Improved communications and education inspired some thinkers to address the nature of nations more systematically than had been the case since antiquity. Also, a larger number of possibilities for governmental structure emerged as alternatives to monarchy or absolute monarchy. The French bishop, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, who personally served Louos XIV, was probably the most articulate advocate of the divine right of kings. In England Sir Robert Filmer made a weaker case for divine right, but served as a strawman for John Locke’s monumental First and Second Treatise on Civil Government.

Amazing scientific developments in the seventeenth century resulted in the Scientific Revolution that offered new concepts of the universe and the physical laws that governed it. Disagreements among the scientific giants lead to widespread confusion most of that century, but there was agreement that the same order that governed the heavens also governed earth. As with most new major scientific concepts, humanists applied the new science to humans and human institutions. New philosophical concepts abounded.

An Englishman, Thomas Hobbes, published his shocking Leviathan in 1651 in behalf of absolute monarchy, shortly after the execution of Charles I in 1649. He differed by basing his theory upon the Nature of Man in a hypothetical State of Nature, meaning the time before there was any social structure. He stated that, due to the intrincic nature of man, life in the State of Nature was “nasty, brutish and short”. This lead to people joining to form a group to protect their lives. They entered a binding contract to give up their lonely independence to an authority which would provide them the single benefit of protecting them from violent death. That, in Hobbes’ opinion, was the only obligation of government.

Another Englishmen, John Locke, also based his political treatises on the State of Nature, the Nature of Man and Natural Law, but totally disagreed with Hobbes. Writing shortly after the Gloriuos Revolution of 1688, he ignored the difficult arguments of Hobbes and directed his comments toward Filmer’s weaker defense of monarchy as simply fulfilling the role of a beneficient father.

Locke viewed man as basically good in the State of Nature but insecure out of fear for his life, liberty and property. In his pristine but insecure State of Nature man sought safety in a larger group. Willingness to accept membership was predicated upon retaining the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property that he possessed in the State of Nature. Being inalienable, he was unable to give up his Natural Rights and no other person or entity could take them from him. Therefore, any legitimate contract any man made, such as with a government, had to guarantee those rights. This meant that a constitution was necessary to protect the Natural Rights of all members of society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most important luminaries of the Enlightenment who had induring influence over individuals and groups of very different attitudes and approaches to social structure. His opening line of Social Contract (1762) that “man was born free but everywhere is in chains” provides an overture of his belief in human freedom. Embracing the concept of Natural Law, he also employed the concept of the State of Nature to explain the requirements of legitimate governmenmt to protect Natural Rights. The difference was his belief that the original contract was inviolable, because it enshrined the General Will of society. He believed there should be no change in a society’s initial declaration of purpose and direction. This work and others he published inspired and directed both the American and French revolutions to accept his basic assumptions and establish constitutional governments to guarantee his perception of basic rights. Rousseau’s Social Contract was the main justification Robespierre stated for instituting the Reign of Terror later during the revolution as he believed the original revolution constituted the General Will of France. Later almost every leftist movement, especially socialists, found inspiration in Rousseau. But he helped popularize the concept of defining the basic nature of man and the belief that Natural Law and Natural Rights existed.

Later speculators about the best way to construct government ignored defining the nature of man to determine their concept of the ideal government. The firmly established practice of having some kind of constitutional government seemed to eliminate such rudimentary concerns. Emphasis upon wealth distribution or plain political manipulation became the primary concern. Until well into the twentieth century authoritarianism in some form prevailed. Utopian efforts proved too toothless to succeed. Marxism in its various forms regarded man as something like a faceless automaton who played his role under the influence of something like cosmic forces that ignored concern for individual human rights.

Inalienable Natural Rights founded in Natural Law appear to be too naïve and unsophisticated to match the mentality of people who can manipulate public opinion and achieve political success without addessing the basic nature of man and, therefore, the kind of government he needs. Still, Natural Rights and government as a contract gave representative government the impetus to make representative government prevail in much of the world and cause it to be a strong desire in places that do not have it.

ESCARGOT BUTTER

Butter 1 1/2 stick
Garlic* Tablespoon or so
Nutmeg to taste
Parsley two tablespoons finely chopped
Salt* & pepper to taste

Chop the garlic as fine as possible. Then add some salt and use the side of a large knife to puree the garlic. The salt serves as abrasive substance to liquefy the garlic. If you do this there will be ample salt in your butter.

Suggested use:

On escargot, of course.

More usually I use it on shrimp and scallops in individual oven proof dishes.

How?
Place shrimp or scallops or both in bottom of dish. (You might try other seafood.)

Place a couple tablespoons of butter on the seafood. I usually put a little butter on top.

Cover with bread crumbs and bake in 375 degree oven for about fifteen minutes or until the bread crumbs have a nice golden color.


A great and simple entrée. You can make the butter well ahead of time or even put the dish together.

I have made this for one of the most elite restaurants in Richmond, where a trained European chef initially showed me how to do it.


It is nice to have around to put on garlic bread.

MUSAKHAN: PALESTINIAN/JORDANIAN DISH

Chicken
Onions
Pita bread
Olive oil
Spices
Lemon Juice

This is a general approach since the number of people you are serving will vary. Also, there is no need for precision.

Soak the amount of chicken you intend to use in lightly salted milk, buttermilk, or water for a few hours. Halves or quarters work well and keeps chicken moist.

Drain the chicken, but there is no need to dry it.

Rub the chicken with lemon juice, salt, pepper, cinnamon, cardamom, all spice, sumac, garlic powder and anything else your taste desires. Allow seasoned chicken to rest for at least an hour to achieve enhanced flavor.


Have enough slices onions to cover the chicken liberally. It would be difficult to have too many.

Sprinkle pine nuts or slivered almonds in and on the onions.

Open pita bread loaves and cover the bottom of a baking dish.

Places the chicken on the bread and cover it with about ¾ inch of slices onions.

Pour a GENEROUS amount of olive oil over the dish.

Bake in a preheated oven at 350 degrees until the thickest pieces reach 190 degrees.

Suggest that you serve this dish with rice and salad
*************************************************************************
You might like the pita bread better than any other part of the dish

JEWS VERSUS ARABS A RECENT RIVALRY

Discussions of the most recent Arab-Jew or Muslim-Jew conflicts often end quickly with someone exclaiming: “Forget about it, those people have been fighting for centuries. It is hopeless!” Such uninformed comments are not limited to uneducated and uninformed individuals.

With rare exception educated and informed individuals are often ignorant in certain areas. Most people have some awareness that Arabs and Jews and Muslims and Jews have a long presence in the Middle East. Almost everyone knows that Jews inhabited the area during the time of both books of the Bible. They also know that Arabs and Muslims constitute the predominant population of the entire region.

For centuries there was no significant conflict among these modern rivals. Few Jews had lived in the Middle East for almost two thousand years. Arabs, who enjoyed a few centuries of prominence and strength, were of little significance in the region after the establishment of Ottoman Turkish domination in the sixteenth century. Most of the Ottoman subjects were Muslims, but the Arabs did not obtain significant influence even when they had something close to autonomy in large areas.

There was no significant number of Jews in the region after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and imposed the Diaspora upon them in 135 A.D. Pockets of Jews existed in the Ottoman Empire, especially in modern day Iraq and Morocco. Jews had some presence elsewhere in the huge expanse of the Ottoman Empire and in Yemen. The generally tolerant Ottomans allowed their Jewish subjects to practice their religion and way of life just as they permitted the many different forms of Christianity to exist and thrive.

But for centuries there were virtually no Jews in Palestine following the Roman expulsion in the second century. Old Jews often went to Palestine to die and be buried. Jewish migration into Palestine increased after 1880 with the beginning of Zionism and the support of wealthy European Jews, who provided them with financial assistance. Even so, the number of Jews in Palestine was around 85,000 when World War I began in 1914. Close to 20,000 of that number emigrated from Palestine as a result of the hardships of that war. The entire population of Palestine was quite sparse and economically marginal, but there were about 600,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs in Palestine by that time. There was no Ottoman acknowledgement of Palestine, as it was simply another hinterland region governed from Damascus and Beirut. There was neither an adequate population nor economic capacity in “Palestine” to merit more Ottoman concern.

The Arab-Jew conflict originated on November 2, 1917 when British Foreign Minister, Lord Balfour, issued a statement that “His Majesty’s government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The statement was part of an effort to induce the Jews in Russia to help keep Russia in the war and the Jews in the United States to persuade that nation to enter the war on the Allies side. This letter gave the Zionist movement its first quasi de facto recognition by a government as a legitimate international organization. The newly formed League of Nations included large portions of the Balfour Declaration in its Mandate for Palestine that instructed Great Britain to assist the Jews establish a “national home”, a phrase which had no precedent in the international diplomatic lexicon.

The British assiduously attempted to implement this international mandate, while protecting the “non-Jews” of Palestine. Outrage among Christian and Muslim Arabs in Palestine spread rapidly throughout the entire Arab region of the Middle East. In fact, opposition to British and Zionist policies in Palestine was the only issue the divisive Arabs could agree upon, because the insertion of an European enclave among them was not only an invasion but an embarrassment. It became the major component of Arab nationalism, which became the new religion of the Arab speaking world. Islam receded into the background as Arabs sought to obtain respect through a total emersion into secular international politics. Interestedly, Arabs of Christian upbringing were in the forefront of leading the Palestinian cause and advocating the creation of a single Arab nation among the widespread Arab speaking world.

Arab animosity toward Zionists, who wanted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, often spilled over to suspicion and even hatred of all Jews. Zionists and other Jews had little doubt that they were in danger from Arab acrimony.

By the eve of World War II the Zionist efforts and British assistance increased the Jewish population in Palestine to nearly 500,000. The Holocaust inspired even larger numbers of Jews to seek saFe haven in Palestine with widespread approval from the international community. Jews regarded British restrictions upon Jewish immigration into Palestine as too great and Arabs regarded them as too lenient. The British were in an untenable position and announced in November, 1947 that they would withdraw on May 15, 1948. Israel declared its nationhood on that date and faced an invasion from the armies of their Arab neighbors. Tiny, new Israel had developed a capable and sizable military capacity over the years and secured their existence when it defeated the poorly prepared Arab armies.

An account of the continuance of the Arab-Israeli conflict falls beyond the scope of this essay. It should be clear, however, that it is of recent origin and a struggle for pride on the part of the Arabs and survival on the part of the Israelis. Religion has a minor role in this conflict, which is little more than a century old, over a small piece of land and the self concept of two different people.

PRIMORDIAL SLIME

In the late 1970’s I suggested to an officer in the student government that they conduct a campus wide election to determine the greatest person in history. There was no election, but I had a nominee. Jimmy Carter was president. A presidential election was heating up.

The Natural Selection of
PRIMORDIAL SLIME
As the Greatest Person in History

Any measure or consideration of greatness must emphasize originality, creativity, breadth and longevity. No person in history can approach the accomplishments of PRIMORDIAL SLIME, who is recognized as the father of all life on our planet. His originality and creativity, which has stood the test of time, are enough to make any other candidates slink and slide into the shadows in shame. All or most of the other candidates in this mismatch election are dead. Otherwise, they would not allow their names to be placed in nomination in a contest with their seminal ancestor, PRIMORDIAL SLIME, who is easily the natural selection for the honor of “Greatest Person in History”.

Doubtless, to get to the root of this quest, someone will nominate GENESIS, who has already received more attention than he deserves . His nomination is, however, another way of calling attention to the entire progeny of PRIMORDIAL SLIME, who ooze genius in blobs. PRIMORDIAL, in fact, begat Genesis, who begat Hortic Eden,, who begat the garden where his daughter, Eve, enlivened our lives by begetting sin and a proper attitude toward snakes. Adam, another Slimian, begat knowledge and hedonism and loved every particle of it.

For many generations the Slimians slipped sideways and backwards while they were stoned for ages, until they were shaken from their stupor and slumber by Homo Drag, who enjoyed a splash of Primordial’s genius. Drag is most remembered for begetting the forerunner of the wheel. In his/her own time he/she was the unrivaled champion of short races and sartorial uniqueness. Homo D.’s name became besmirched by its unfounded association with the concept that life is a drag. This reputation was not even overcome millennia later when Abner Doubleday, whose genes ran true back to PRIMORDIAL, squeezed the opportunity to name a daring bunt after Homo Drag.

Sliding back to the Slime line: Homo Drag begat Sparcus Emberus, who begat fire. Sparcus’ daughter, Spoka, begat the family lineage of Roland Wheel, who begat a famous song and rounded out Homo Drag’s drag. Primordial’s election was already assured, but genius still spilled from the Slimes.

Semetie Slime begat Abraham Slime, who begat twin brothers, Moesha and Abdullah, who assured the family fortune by diversification. Moesha and his clan specialized in lamb and lox, while Abdullah’s clan emphasized camels and dates. Heat from PRIMORDIAL’S subterranean decomposition turned their lands into desert, but they attributed it to the sun which they could see. Moesha’s tribe would look to the sky and say “Yaa Wha” as they wiped their brows, but Abdullah’s tribe began to respond with “Ah Lah”. Other insignificant changes in their languages after years of separation made it impossible for them to recognize their kinship until this day.

Meanwhile Hu Goo Slime made a chink for himself in the Orient trough early Nobelian experiments before settling on a much safer calling in the perfection of tableware and paper. Hu Goo begat Tra Yul Wal, who begat Coo Lee freemasonry. The Hu Goo Slime line also begat the outspoken Con Fus Us, an earlier and wiser Henny Youngman. Only recently has the confusion of his wisdom been modernized and superceded by another Slimian, Char Man Mao Buk.

Brothers Boo Doo and Voo Doo Slime enchanted Asia and Africa, respectively. Boo Doo begat Hin Doo, who preserved most of India as an S.P.C.A. compound (Slimian Protective Cattle Association). He also begat a carnivorous daughter, Cow Cutta, who was a mathematical genius. She was banished northward from her native city and begat numerous tribes who later welcomed the teachings of Moo Ha Mud Slime, who endorsed carnivority provided they pray towards Kasha, which Mo Ha Mud regarded as the final slumbering site of PRIMORDIAL SLIME, whose gifts so many had inherited and whose life-giving residue sustained generations much later after the near demise of Moby Dick’s progeny.

By accident, the Occident gained the benefits of Cow Cutta’s mathematical gifts, when Moo Ha Muddans introduced figs at one of Cow Cutta’s carnivals. Fig trading begat close contact with the West through the enterprise of Omar Al Feeg’s Humpty Dumpty Fig and Carpet Company. Some of the Al Feeg tribe later settled in Spain, where Al Gebra Feeg Arabized Calcuttian mathematics. Al Mooro Feeg later took Al Gebra’s teaching to England because he could not give satisfactory answers to the Spanish Christian theologian, Fatale Inquisitor.* Understandably, he Anglicized his name to Issac Fig, and begat Preserved Fig, who returned to the ancient family love of fig trading in partnership with Bill Newton.

The close relationship between the two families lead to the marriage of Ceedy Fig and Bill Newton XXIV, who begat a scholarly son. Issac, in whose corpuscles the Slimian strain occasionally pulsed with unprecedented brevity and clarity through a brain usually preoccupied with alchemy. Slimian instinct alone cannot account for his properly naming his mathematical invention, calculus, after the long forgotten Old Cow Cutta. As if to prove that slime is thicker than blood he soon also cut the mythological knot which had held the world in ignorance for centuries and explained by Cow Cuttian mathematics the Grand Plan for everything which PRIMORDIAL SLIME had so long ago slid into some forgotten drawer. Other mongrelizing forces had taken their toll, however, and Sir Issac mistakenly attributed the Grand Plan to a much later pedant named Primordial Clock! His error was regrettable but not serious because smaller minds could now attempt to understand Mr. Clock’s “clock”, just when it seemed, in retrospect, Slimian genius had emerged for the last time in a few centuries**

Voltaire, no Slimian he, led an enlightening movement of watered down Slimian knowledge throughout the entire Occident. Somehow he inspired a person of similar name, called Volta, who made what was thought to be an invention equal to those of Homo Drag, Sparcus Emberus, Roland Wheel, but the work of Voltaire and Volta later reached fruition in a whimper in the light bulb.

We are in a new stoned age and soon might be living in caves without real hope of enjoying any comfort from the work of Sparcus Emberus and Roland Wheel, because the genius of PRIMORDIAL SLIME has not recently reappeared and we have almost sucked up the very residue from His sand covered grave.

The fact that this election can be taken seriously demonstrates our plight. Clowns, jesters and hacks have been nominated. Only this pale account of the IMORTAL PRIMORTAL has been offered to have our Creator considered. Diluted, deluded slobs of the world unite! You have nothing to gain but a full appreciation of PRIMORDIAL SLIME! Don’t settle for peanuts. Demand a Slime! Let’s put a Slime on the cover of TIME.
*************************************************************************************

* His clever brother stayed behind and adopted the Spanish name of Figaro.
** The Clockwork Orange well demonstrates where non-Slimian ignorance and clockery can lead.

BEING A BACHELOR

I know I should not write about this subject and as I consider it I have no idea what I am going to write. For sure I will not advocate this kind of life. Few could regard marriage more highly than I do and I love to see happily married couples. They are the very pillars of society. I will say that again. THEY are the very pillars of society.

My family has many strong marriages, in fact, all of my seven siblings have great marriages. My parents were handholders well into their seventies when my mother died. Several of my father’s siblings never married. Likely no one would have them. I agree with whomever said that he “would not marry anyone who would have me.” Having lived alone for nearly twenty years probably makes me unfit to live with anyone. Also, my big houses are behind me but I still have a lot of those burdensome possessions I pay the mortgage to keep… “for surely they will possess you.”

I cannot find any way to reconfigure my things in my downsized dwelling in a different way, so there is no room for anyone else to join me. That had crossed my mind before and might be as good a reason as any for me to avoid spouse hunting. Also, I can wash clothes, cook better than most women, take my shirts and pants to the cleaners, so why would I need a wife? You notice I did not mention housekeeping. Companionship? I cannot recall ever being lonely, except when I am with people who I do not wish to be with. My sons are grown up and enjoy a good relationship with their mothers and me. They, nor anyone else, need me for anything substantial.

This kind of life brings freedom. There is a country song to the effect that “freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose.” I love a good phrase, so I think I remember it for its linguistic tone rather than because it reflects my outlook.

I stick with characterizing being able to eat pizza for breakfast and cornflakes for dinner as freedom. Freedom to schedule activities as long as they do not conflict with other things you schedule or spend your money within the bounds of obligations to one’s debtors. Freedom to sit around and write something meaningless like this little message.

By all means, I suggest that everyone marry and become that pillar of society we need.

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan is not and never has been a nation, by any legitimate definition of the word. For some time it has been an entity with borders and a capital city and someone who claims to be its king or president. Nothing resembling national institutions and services exist. Warlords and tribal chieftains only comply with national laws and regulations when it suits their needs and wishes. Virtually none of these local strong men pretend to be loyal to the government in Kabul or to the changing alliances they enter and leave as their needs dictate.

This condition is a normal pattern that has prevailed for centuries, rather than the aftermath of an unfortunate colonial experience. While its challenging, mountainous terrain explains some of its never becoming a nation, its lack of anything to anchor its economy explains even more. It has always been important for its geographical location. It was important to prevent enemies from using it for a base of attack or a avenue for supply. The Soviet Union, for instance, did not invade in 1980 to annex the area but like the Russian Empire before it to provide a possible outlet to the warm waters of the south. Its strategic location attracted numerous invaders that Afghans learned to play like virtuosos. In doing so, they did what Afghans do best: survive.

The United States became heavily involved in Afghanistan in the 1980’s to thwart Soviet long-standing desire to thrust southward. Its close association with bin Laden and his mujahadin was a simple mini marriage of convenience, which neither intended to sustain after repelling the Soviets. After the Soviet withdrawal in 1987 U.S. interest essentially ended. That approach was no longer possible when the intrinsic weakness of Afghanistan resulted in the Islamic militants of the Taliban established a training center for Islamic jihadists to prepare for attacks on the United States.

The Obama administration states a commitment to winning a war in Afghanistan, which he characterizes as the real American interest, rather than Iraq, which his predecessor pinned his reputation upon. President Obama indicates he is ruthless in his efforts to achieve every goal he espouses. The large increase in American forces in Afghanistan indicates he is dedicated to winning “his” war.

American forces can accomplish any goal and win any war when they are free of political restrictions. Winning the war in Afghanistan depends on the defining victory in that country. An all out American effort can kill the existing Taliban and their replacements.

Nation building in Afghanistan is a different story. One could say the United States built a new nation in Japan and played the largest role doing the same in Germany following World War II. Achieving the same in Iraq is much more viable than trying to achieve a functioning nation in Afghanistan. Japan, Germany and Iraq had in common that they had unquestionably been nations. While one might doubt the accuracy of calling Iraq a nation, it had centralized institutions, a very sound economy and a single language and sense of heritage from the 1920’s. Creation of a nation in Afghanistan in a short period of time, even covering two Obama terms, would be a monumental achievement. Would anything short of that constitute victory?

NUMBING NUMBERS

In about the eighth grade I learned that the sun was 93,000,000 miles from earth. I am sure that was the biggest number I had ever heard and I am sure that I had no concept of what it meant. I soon heard a lot about millions usually related to germs or bacteria that I could not see.

From my perspective they were not real. For many years “millions” remained the basic unfathomable numbers I heard associated with the Federal budget. I recall Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirkson, saying “a million here, a million there and soon you are talking about real money”. In his inimitable way, he was calling attention to the use of big numbers and the growth of the national budget.

In retrospect, realization of that is a good measure of my youth and naiveté. As years passed billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions became more common in a gradual enough evolution that I and others took the elevated numbers in stride. Billions was big, but my fellow citizens and I had some concept of the magnitude of the American Gross National Product, as well as confidence that our national leaders would do the right thing. Senator Dirkson was dead and the less prosperous times had passed. Our nation was the wealthiest nation in history.

Recently “trillions” (1,000,000,000’s) bombard my ears and eyes. Apparently, it requires thirty-two years to count to a trillion. I cannot live long enough to find out, even if I decided to spend my time so foolishly. Likewise, I do not contemplate infinity or eternity. I take comfort in my belief that those who talk about such concepts do not know more about those subjects than I do.

But, one way or the other, I must grapple with trillion and its plurals. The enormity of this often casual parlance deals with the Federal budget instead of cerebral games for intellectuals and their quasi imitators. The numbers obligated no longer come close to matching the national government’s income. In fact, the obligations appear to remain with us for eternity. Or, at least forever.

We come by our casual acceptance of these enormous numbers naturally. Professional athletes and other entertainers regularly receive multi-million dollars annually. The day is long past when people were dismayed that an athlete earned more than the President because “he had a better year than the President”. In recent years corporate executives receive millions of dollars in compensation annually, even when their firms lose money. The gross extravagance became so widespread for so long that, like other abominations, it became accepted as normal.

The vast incomes are a way of keeping score, rather than a means of putting the money to use. The money ungodly earned was ungodly spent. Large incomes indicate victory. A wiser society can protect its economy and achieve high goals by awarding a limited number of ribbons, medals or other distinguished, symbolic awards. Apparently there is an infinite number of numbers and apparently we can print an infinite number of dollars. The more there are of both the less they are worth. Incompressible as these numbers are, they are still real.

Since infinite wisdom does not seem available, our best hope is the unlikely possibility that common sense might return.

THE FABIAN SOCIETY

The Fabian Society might well have succeeded in implementing its political, economic and social agenda better than any other movement in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. Whether they deserve that acclaim or not, they have achieved remarkable success, while remaining largely unknown. It is difficult to cite any other movement which stealthily implemented its goals under the radar for detection of its goals or identity.

They took their name from Fabius Maximus, the Roman general who accepted the challenge of saving the Roman Empire from Hannibal and his multi cultural army, which fought in behalf of the North African state of Carthage. In that stage of the Second Punic War each state desired to annihilate the other. Simple victory was unacceptable. The Roman forces were less able and committed to Rome than earlier Roman armies had been. Hannibal enjoyed a well deserved reputation as a master strategist and tactician with the additional ability to utilize psychological methods to deflate his opponents’ morale. His use of elephants in this prolonged campaign was his most noted innovation.

The bravest Roman officers and soldiers had never seen anything like the heavy pachyaderm cavalry Hannibal possessed. Hannibal’s force was stronger than the Romans even after the elephants died primarily from exposure to cold while crossing the Alps.

Fabius Maximus acknowledged Carthaginian superiority and devised a strategy that avoided frontal engagements with the invading enemy. Under his command the Romans carefully chose time and place to hit their foe and inflict some level of damage. They attacked scouting and foraging parties to impair Carthaginian effectiveness. In time Hannibal determined victory was impossible and returned to North Africa. Roman infliction of many small wounds succeeded.

The Fabian Society adopted a similar approach in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Capitalism was the enemy they desired to kill in the course of time through a concerted effort of virtually imperceptible attacks. They chose the fairly new device of the ballot box and public opinion to achieve their goal. Their approach was perfectly legal, non-violent and even admirable, especially since advocacy of change through bloody revolution had prevailed among leftist for more than half a century.

Few could take their optimistic approach seriously because of Marx’s call for violence, while he derided the gentler socialist thinkers who preceded him as unrealistic Utopian dreamers. The Fabians were intellectuals like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Like responsible political thinkers such as the Classical Liberals before them, they intended to change society through education or re-education of voters. The Classical Liberals and the Classical Economists assumed that capitalism would prevail in their society of the accelerated industrial revolution.

The German socialist, Eduard Bernstein also advocated change through the electoral process because an ever increasing number of Germans and other Europeans had the right to vote by the late nineteenth century. He did not, however, define a method for accelerating the transition from capitalism to socialism.

The Fabian approach was simple, legal and essentially unobtrusive. They proposed to construct a new society by creating a continuous supply of politicians, teachers, artists, poets, playwrights, writers, journalists, cinematographers and all other people in positions to shape public opinion. Their creation of the London School of Economics was the cornerstone of their scheme.

There is little doubt that all of the fields they targeted have become increasingly compliant with the Fabian approach, although only a small percentage of contemporary opinion makers have any idea there was ever a Fabian movement. The secret of their success was their ability to employ their approach to willing, apparently unproselytized people in the entire spectrum of public relations. Being leftist in those fields currently seems as natural as breathing. This did not happen accidentally, as an apostolic succession of individuals with similar views have implemented the plan of the Fabian founders.

What/How is Heaven?

What is Heaven? or How is Heaven? are silly questions. Every Christian knows from childhood the blissful rewards for eternity for good behavior. Streets paved with gold, abundance of milk and honey and other wonderful things to complement a totally idyllic life will be theirs.

The Bible seems to be of little help on this subject of what and how. Jesus said “in my Father’s house are many mansions”, and “I go prepare a place for you” and to the thieves who died with him “you will join me in Paradise”. Otherwise, he did not define the nature of life believers could expect as their ultimate reward.

Assume it is just like or similar to popular parlance, since nobody seems to know what eternal life is like. Questions arise, however, of what our love ones and friends will look like. How will we know them? Grandparents were fairly old or very old when we knew them. Of course, a twenty year old appears and behaves old to a small child. Will an eighty-seven year old grandfather have a sixteen year old body, but a big white mustache? Similar questions arise about all others inside the Pearly Gates.

It is unlikely anyone would want to spend eternity in an old and possibly frail body at the time of their death. Also, grandparents had parents and grandparents. Some parents and grandparents die young. It would be strange for an eighty-seven year old man to walk down the golden streets with his forty year old father and thirty-seven year old grandfather.

One of my brothers, who was born two years earlier than me, died in infancy. Is it possible that I will, in whatever age body I have in Heaven, change my older infant brother’s diapers and wheel him around in a gold stroller? He never had an older body to dial back to.

Will dominant grandmothers, grandfathers, mother or fathers assume the same role in Heaven? How would it be if some grizzled old frontiersman of whatever age in Heaven claimed the right to make all decisions for later generations who never knew he existed? What if none of the preachers the family knew did not seem to be anywhere in Heaven? Will people begin to speculate about the preacher and Mamie Bradford who lived in the neighborhood and is nowhere to be found? She was such a nice girl. One never knows.

From dust we came and to dust we will return. Only the soul is eternal. Perhaps only spirits or souls go to Heaven. They would not take up much space. Anyone scared of ghosts might find Heaven horrifying, as spooks could be in any or every nook and cranny. A lot of spirits passing through harps could produce a very eerie, even scary atmosphere. Also, it might be interesting to learn whether streets of gold and milk and honey would appeal to bodiless spirits. A husband-spirit might say to his wife-spirit, “Honey, your honey is showing.”

We know that God works in mysterious ways. Perhaps He knows that Heaven has to offer eternal life to allow people time to find their families and friends and sort them out. If so, Heaven could be a bigger and more confusing trick than the Tower of Babel. For instance, think of all the Chinese souls one might have to inspect in an effort to find Mommy and Daddy. Will souls be color coded so one would at least know which continent neighborhood to start a search? It might be useless to look for Aunt Mary, as she is probably with Mamie Bradford and the preacher. And, oh my, wouldn’t it be nice to find your lifetime heroes? Once you did, it might be possible to spirit yourself to the front of the line to strum a few harp notes with your favorites while less assertive souls wait patiently in line. It is doubtful that Heaven is immune from craftiness and trickery that serve so well on earth. Heaven, like life, might be a learning experience.

See you there.

PARSE LATER: A PERFECT SYMBIOSIS

The meaning of a word or a phrase has caused and/ or justified wars, made careers, killed careers, resulted in contentious litigation and changed the prevailing way of life.

Extensive and prolonged debate over single words or phrases has occurred in every legislature of every constitutional government. The interpretation of a single word or phrase has determined the outcome of every kind of litigation. Everyone recalls how central President Bill Clinton’s contention of how important the question of “what is is”, however questionable the effect of that ploy of that trained attorney was. A major obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians turns on Israel’s insistence that the Arabs agree in writing that Israel is “a Jewish state”. Scholars in every religion usually disagree on the interpretation of a single word or phrase to justify their own or vilify their opponents’ religious practice.

No one reading this has difficulty understanding the common knowledge stated above. Most readers, in fact, have many other examples running through their minds in the few seconds required to read the above.

If this is common sense and common knowledge, why bother to address such a mundane subject? Again, common sense and minimal good judgment raises that question.

Attention to the obvious seems necessary as the wise and even marginally wise citizens of the United States have watched their national legislators approve into law thousand plus pages of bills which they did not read. They agreed on a legislative schedule that did not allow enough time to read these bills and others that are hovering in the wings.

Perhaps only the congressional staffers and their advisers, who composed the various segments of the legislation, know the contents and the possible repercussions of the unknown provisions in their particular segments. Likely no one knew the entirety of the bills and pondered their possible short and long range repercussions. The gavel came down and the President’s handful of fountain pens made these gargantuan, unknown bills the Law of the Land.

Aliens from other countries or planets did not commit these abominations on the American citizenry and tax payers. The dolts who did it were duly elected members of the House of Representatives and Senate under the guidance of the President, his Cabinet, and advisers. Uninformed, naïve, well meaning voters put all those people in control of the nation and its citizens. Perhaps it is true that people get the government they deserve. Elected officials have millions, and recently billions, of tax dollars at their disposal to lavish government largess on their constituents and their districts. That assures each of them virtual immunity from losing their positions. Each constituent and each constituency enjoys the unearned rewards.

Passive and greedy as most citizens are, they fail to realize the horrendous effect that their individual sugar daddies can impose when the 535 legislators act collectively. There is no reason the cycle of interdependence between the voters and their legislators will change. Voters only have to spend a few seconds to render their votes. Legislators use the apparently bottomless coffers of the United States Treasury to quench the boundless greed of their constituents. No other symbiotic relationship is stronger than that between dependent voters and their dependent legislators. Roman Consuls, generals and dictators gave the Romans relatively inexpensive bread and circuses. Total health coverage, “social security”, bridges and airports to nowhere, pure air, protection against galactic changes, skateboard rinks, and myriad of other formerly locally financed projects in the twenty first century is considerably more costly.

It is not as if plenty of wise men have not warned against the possibility that fulfilling everyone’s desires could empty a treasury. Isn’t democracy great!

GOLD

Gold! For most Americans that magical and mythical metal is something the extravagantly wealthy use for ornamentation, while the unwashed might only commune with that exotica when buying a little fourteen carat wedding ring. Asians from the Middle East eastward traditionally use gold much more extensively and most are aware of the vagaries of its price. Americans, generally, could not care less about gold as a commodity than about pork bellies and artichokes.

Recently we are bombarded with advertisements for gold as the only means of preventing the disappearance of our personal wealth. This is not significantly different from the much maligned position of seventeenth and eighteenth century mercantilists, who conventional thinking believed maintained that only gold and silver constituted wealth. Certainly by the beginning of the eighteenth century the mercantilist approach was far more sophisticated than that, despite what Adam Smith said. There is no denial, however, that the pursuit of precious metal accumulation was a strong motivation for all aspects of economic activity.

Having written a master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation on mercantilism provides me some license to address the subject. While I could have justifiably presented an entire course on this subject, I never did. In fact, one cannot teach any history course effectively without considerable attention to the prevailing economic theory and practice of the time.

Pity anyone who tries to explain the prevailing economic theory of the contemporary United States. Attack upon capitalism is more successful than it has ever been. Lack of understanding of economic theory in the general population is no small part of anti-capitalist achievements. Ironically, almost every college student now and from at least the middle of the twentieth century received a strong smattering of Marxist theory and likely read The Communist Manifesto, while few of them, including Economics majors, ever looked at a page of Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which is supposedly the Bible of capitalism.

For the moment, gold is our subject. Why not, as it is hovering around $1000 an ounce. An ounce of gold is about the size of the smallest pieces of chocolate in a Whitman’s Sampler.
That equals a lot of peoples’ monthly mortgage payment, a couple car payments, their annual veterinarian bill, or the accumulated cost of going to the beauty parlor for a year.

How many shares of Ford or General Electric can one buy with the required investment in a little chunk (morsel) of gold? Having seen our retirement funds in conventional stocks evaporate, it is easy to agree with gold hawkers that gold has “never been worth nothing”.

If your piggy bank is big and full enough, you might crack it open and buy a fragment of gold. It will retain some value and take up less space than any piggy bank.

CALVINIST ORIGIN OF MODERN DEMOCRACY

Giving the ancient Greeks credit for modern democracy is baseless. In some of the ancient Greek city states democracy prevailed at least some of the time among the people who qualified to vote. More times than not, however, real power and decision making was in the hands of someone, not unlike the “philosopher king” of Plato’s Republic. This was particularly true in times of crisis and war, which was often the case.

We must recognize that the concept and appeal of democracy to the masses was strong in many places. Educated people, who were a small percentage of the population, from the Renaissance in the fourteenth century onward were steeped in classical Greeks and Romans thinkers and literature. A classics based education remained the norm for the American Founding Fathers and their educated brethren of the Enlightenment movement in Europe. They were aware, therefore, of the role legislatures played in creating laws in antiquity, again, except in times of dire crisis.

Democracy became ensconced in Europe and America, however, as a result of actions by Calvinists on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. They established micro and macro models for their concept of representative government by political and military success. Their inspiration was not from the Greeks and Romans but from John Calvin’s observations on the governance of the early Christian congregations. Those congregations governed themselves in all respects from choosing and disciplining their membership to selecting deacons, elders and pastors. Calvin and his followers concluded that form of governance conformed to God’s desire.

While Calvin endorsed Jesus’ dictum to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s”, he ultimately did not believe there should be a “Caesar” but an elected government to administer the state. If this is true “Caesar” was the government of a society. That government should, however, be composed of Christians, who would assure that all laws conformed to Christian beliefs and practices. His was a Presbyterian system of church government, which installed a hierarchy of local, regional, provincial and national synods which at all levels were elected among Christians. There was also provision for an international synod.

Such an outlook could not embrace or accept secular government under kings or Church government by Popes and their ecclesiastical hierarchy. Their activist approach to achieve their goals was amazingly successful. They defeated Spain, the mightiest state in the world, to establish the Calvinist Dutch Republic, which became the wealthiest nation in the world. The Calvinist Huguenots kept France embroiled for decades and received many concessions. They overthrew Mary, Queen of Scots, and establish their Kirk (church) in Scotland. They gained a majority among the Seven Electors in the Holy Roman Empire, which governed most of Central Europe. Calvinist desires were central to the prolongation of the Thirty Years War from 1618 to 1648.

Their influence in establishing constitutional government in England is inestimable. Suffice it to mention here that they their fervent advocacy lead to significant laws in England in the first forty years of the seventeenth century. Their dissatisfaction with those changes lead to a decade of civil war, which ultimately resulted in the execution of King Charles I and the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, a Calvinist, albeit he rejected a Presbyterian form of religious government. The restoration of monarchy and the Church of England in 1660 under Charles II was far from a total defeat of Calvinism, as they gained significant concessions, which became more pronounced in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Calvinism in America, in the more recognizable term of Puritanism, permeated New England and provided a microcosm model for national representative government.

Belief in a “social contract” had increased appeal in the second half of the seventeenth century in no small part for the Calvinist weakening of the traditional allegiance to monarchies and Popes. It is notable that this revolutionary concept of the American and French revolutions did not spring directly from the Greek and Roman classics, but from the recently developed belief in “Natural Law”. Space does not permit further development of this outlook, but the Calvinists had aroused beliefs and provided alternative concepts of government that spread the idea of representative government and proved it was practical.

EGYPTIAN THREAT

Egypt managed to achieve two relatively peaceful, successful transitions of power since Nasser’s death in September 1970. This is wonderfully surprising and beneficial to the region and the world. Sadat, the vice president, succeeded Nasser in 1970 with little violent outburst. The abject grief in Egypt might account for that, along with a pronounced lack of appreciation of Sadat’s political acumen. General Mubarak, the vice president, ascended to the presidency following Sadat’s assassination in 1981.

Mubarak is in his 80’s and has not chosen a vice president. Although he has never declared his intention, most people are convinced that he has groomed his son, Jamal, as his successor. Such a development will be far from popular in Egypt or the region. In fact, Mubarak and his son are in low repute by many elements in Egypt and throughout the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East. Corruption, suppression of Islamists, his acceptance of peaceful relations with Israel and a close affiliation with the United States are foremost among the reasons potentially strong and violent elements oppose Mubarak and the prospect of his son continuing these practices and affiliations.

The attitude among the military is crucial in this situation, as it is in the best position to determine the succession to power, perhaps from among one or more individuals among themselves. A military personage in coalition with militant Muslims could probably acquire control without overt opposition. Unless there is a military seizure of power with the consent of key jihadists, the latter will oppose anything short of a committed Islamic rule and the adoption of Sharia (Islamic) law.

While Iran is presently the most influential Middle Eastern nation, a change in Egypt will validate Egypt as the actual fulcrum of Middle Eastern affairs. Egypt’s American/Israeli affiliation since Sadat’s administration removed it from its traditional role as the Arab leader. But, just as Egypt was reluctant to be the Arab leader before Nasser, its primacy as Arab leadership will be readily accepted by whatever strongly Islamic administration that might emerge. Just as under Nasser, other Arab regimes will have no choice but follow Egypt’s lead under influence of the regional Islamic Arab masses. Also, as under Nasser, failure to do so will threaten the demise of other Arab regimes.

Extraordinary American assistance to Egypt since the 1970’s was not charity to improve the lives of our Egyptian brethren. American policy, with the acquiescence of Israel, was a Realpolitick determination that the Arab world could not wage an effective war without Egypt. This became all the more true with the demise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There is, in fact, the possibility that an improved Egyptian military under American training and an Iraqi military enhanced with military guidance portends to provide unprecedented Arab military capability since the days of Arab expansion in the first couple centuries of Islam.

The Lost Wax Bronze Casting Process

The following is the step by step process of the "Lost Wax Casting" method. After reviewing this process, which normally takes approximately three weeks to complete a single small-sized sculpture, you will have a better understanding of all that is involved in casting.

Step 1 Making the mold from the original work of art: This step is by far the most critical. All the detail of the original sculpture must be captured in this mold.

Step 2 Making the wax casting: Molten wax is poured into the mold to form layers of wax. This wax model is an exact duplicate of the original sculpted model.

Step 3 Chasing the wax: The wax is pulled from the mold and hand chased (re-detailed) by a skilled artisan.

Step 4 Spruing: Wax rods (gates) and a pouring cup are attached to the wax casting in just the right positions to assure a full metal pour.

Step 5 Casting the ceramic mold (ceramic shell): In a temperature controlled climate, the wax casting is dipped into liquid ceramic shell material. On the first dip a fine powder is applied. On the next dip a course ceramic sand will be applied. This step is repeated several times. Each dip increases the coarseness of the material to create the ceramic mold. Between each dip the ceramic layer must cure (dry) before another layer can be applied.

Step 6 Burn-out: The ceramic mold is fired in a kiln. The shell bakes and the wax is melted (lost) from the shell. This creates a hollow shell mold. Thus the term "Lost Wax".

Step 7 Casting: The ceramic shell mold is removed from the kiln and immediately molten bronze is poured into the shell. At the time of pouring the bronze is 2100 Fahrenheit.

Step 8 Break-out: After the casting has cooled, the shell is carefully broken away leaving the unfinished bronze.

Step 9 Sandblasting: removes any fragments from the ceramic shell.

Step 10 Assembly: At this time all the pieces of the sculpture are welded together by our skilled craftsmen

Step 11 Chasing: all the weld marks are chased and re-detailed.

Step 12 Sandblasting: After all the metal finishing has been performed the sculpture is sandblasted for a final time to ensure an even bronze finish for the patina.

Step 13 Patina and Waxing: The bronze is first heated with a torch and then the patina chemicals are hand applied by a skilled artist. Several applications are applied in order to achieve the proper color qualities desired. The piece is then waxed with heat and polished to ensure a beautiful luster.

Step 14 Mounting: The sculpture is mounted on wood or marble depending on the customer's preference and the final inspection will occur.

BECOMING A DOCTOR

BECOMING A DOCTOR

It is clear that parents have reduced their expectations for their offspring if they cease encouraging their offspring to become a doctor or lawyer. Those professions have been revered through the ages. They enjoyed high social esteem even when they did not enjoy extraordinary incomes. By the twentieth century doctors and lawyers generally were among the highest earners and retained a high level of societal respect.

Law school and medical school are expensive in several ways. Tuition and books are expensive. Most professional schools in these fields require a full-time effort on the part of the students and forbid employment while matriculating in their institutions. Aspiring students, therefore, must find a way to pay for the various goods and services necessary to live. There is the double jeopardy of the heavy financial burden of paying for all aspects of continued study and the absence of an income. During their prolonged study they witness their undergraduate classmates fully ensconced in their professional lives, building their incomes, reputations and families.

Credentials have changed for entering both of these professions. One can no longer read law under a lawyer’s guidance and hang out a shingle announcing one’s qualification to accept clients with legal problems or needs. A prospective lawyer must attend a law school for three years after acquiring an undergraduate college degree. In most cases a person can become a lawyer after three years of law school and proceed to build their credentials, reputations and incomes.

Becoming a doctor is a different story. As with the law, candidates must have a glowing diversified record in undergraduate work to obtain acceptance into medical school. Most agree that four years of medical school is mentally, physically and emotionally challenging. With rare exception medical students have strong academic knowledge, skills and work habits. Nothing, however, has prepared them for the intensity of day to day demands which makes any sleep a luxury. During their last two years they get a taste of long hours on duty in their hospitals.

By the fourth year medical students must declare a specific field of medicine to enter. Having done so, they proceed to apply for residency positions in programs they think might accept them. They yearn for the opportunity to obtain an interview from medical schools on their prioritized list. Travel and living expenses associated with the interviewing process is burdensome. Residency granting institutions also prioritize their lists from perhaps hundreds of applicants that would like to join their institutions. Seldom does one institution offer more than six residency positions Anxiety reigns among the candidates in anticipation of the result of their quest.

On March 15 a computer provides a “match” for most all graduates from medical school. This is called MATCH DAY. The process involves matching the prioritize list of the students and the institutions. Students have no idea of where the computer and destiny will take them.

Off to their new locations the residents face three to seven years of continued study to become fully certified in their chosen medical field. This means setting up some kind of living arrangement they can afford on something like a subsistence income. It is of interest that the term “resident” derives from not too long ago when there was virtually no pay during this period of additional training following medical school. The young doctors could not afford their own accommodations, so they were residents in their hospitals.

Even the newest residents often find themselves involved in demanding medical situations. A president might be rushed into the emergency room while they are on duty. They are on duty for horrific hours. Most will experience consecutive shifts of around the clock duty. They obtain experience and training that qualifies them to strike out on their own and try to catch up financially with their undergraduate classmates who have been building their careers for a decade.