Aphorisms and Letters The Grand Experiment—What Went Wrong? A Layman’s Interpretation by Alipio Baldi - HTML preview

• • •

April 22nd 2001

To the Sports Editor:

An individual‘s religious convictions are subject to private interpretation. A person should never be judged by the content of his or her religious beliefs but by the quality of his or her (own) actions. Tolerance and a mutual regard for one another‘s opinions, in spite of our own hardened viewpoints, preserve the social fabric of polite society by keeping it whole in spite of our differences. Had I been a Jew, (referring to Barry Stanton) I should have felt ―naked, mortified and outraged‖ over the insensitive comments made by an individual lacking cultural refinement. I would remind Charles Ward (New York Knickerbocker basketball player) what Christ Himself admonished: ―Judge not lest ye be judged‖. As a Roman Catholic, I too am oftentimes offended by gratuitous Christian bashing that has become commonplace in the Motion Picture Industry, for example, and among second rate, dysfunctional ―artists‖, (subsidized at tax-payer expense), whose Christian points of view are intentionally designed to (publicly) offend not only their primary target (Christians) but other religiously minded individuals who take religious matters seriously. I must take further exception to columnist Ian O‘Connor‘s revisionist account of Pontius Pilate‘s role in the crucifixion of Christ; that it was he (Pilate) who

―actually ordered the execution of Christ‖. I am certain that the good sisters of Saint Cecilia‘s properly explained to young Ian that Pilate was never convinced, ―I find no guilt in him‖, of Christ‘s guilt and that the trumped-up charges of Treason and Sedition leveled against Him by the High Priests were unfounded and unsupported by so-called ―witnesses‖ brought to bear testimony against Him; but manufactured, however, by religious leaders who considered Him (Christ) a threat to their ecclesiastical authority. In this manner Pilate addressed the angry crowd; ―I am innocent of the blood of this just person‖. In many ways Pilate was not unlike many contemporary politicians conditioned by the fine art of political expediency rather than motivated by the callings of Truth and Justice.

Such are most politicians; Men (and Women) for all Seasons.

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

September 13th 2001

To the Sports Editor:

Ian O‘Connor‘s column, ―Tragedy reminds us why we need sports‖, published the day after Islamic Terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners; ramming two into the World Trade Center, (bringing both towers down and leaving thousands of people dead in its wake), one into the Pentagon, (that fortunately incurred far less damage) and another that crashed in rural Pennsylvania before reaching its final destination after passengers heroically seized control of the airliner from the hijackers; leaving everyone dead on board. This/these remarkable event(s) quickly brought to mind the Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) waged ten years earlier by coalition forces led by the United States against Iraq who, having invaded Kuwait and seizing possession of its oil wells, was making veiled threats against its Saudi (Arabian) neighbor. I remember receiving an ―urgent‖ call one evening from a friend of mine prompting me to turn on one of the cable news channels. Following his request, I soon learned that America was indeed at war. This was pretty heavy stuff! I went to work the following morning anticipating some rather lively discussions. With few notable exceptions among my contemporary co-workers, however, most of my younger colleagues, young men in their twenties, were more inclined to talk about a ball game that had been played the night before. Such (casual) indifference to this important (historical) event reminded me of a remark made by the Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, and I quote, ―Give the people sports‖; (the soccer matches ostensibly intended to provide cover for his considerable misdeeds). Now I enjoy sports as much as the next person. It‘s a necessary diversion that draws our attention away from the stressful anxieties associated with our everyday lives. In a word, sports place Reality in a state of (suspended) animation while we seek to restore a peaceful balance between our minds and bodies. In this manner, sports should be placed in its proper context. It seems that far too many of us, however, have become over-exposed to sports. Our society‘s insatiable demand for sports has given rise to 24/7 sports channels with up to the minute sports updates on every conceivable sport imaginable. I believe that we are setting a disturbing precedent by allowing our obsession with sports to (otherwise) run interference for social and political matters of critical importance in our daily lives. Instead, far too many of us have allowed sports to take center stage. How many of us are able to quickly recite statistics such as which Quarterback has thrown the most touchdown passes or which Pitcher owns the best won/loss record or lowest earned run average however must give pause in naming the vice-presidential candidate in the upcoming presidential election? Bread and Circus‘ are coming full circle. I am reminded that great nations having forgotten the lessons of History must inevitably succumb to the complacency of its (own) designs. Let‘s distract the people. Let the games begin!

156

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

November 19th 2001

To the Sports Editor:

Ian ―John Brown‖ O‘Connor‘s column, ―Stars need to answer Stewart‘s call to action‖, another in a long line of racial hyperboles consistent with his obsessive railings against the White Community; White Males in particular, resonates with the temper of nineteenth century Abolitionism. Mr. O‘Connor‘s morbid fascination with Race, while making for ―good‖ copy, is something any sober-minded individual should consider troubling if not offensive to Whites and Blacks alike. His thoughtless indifference to the momentous progress made in this area (race relations) over the past forty years or more, extemporaneously betrays an intellectual dishonesty steeped in naiveté and misplaced idealism that has lost much of its (historical) relevance in modern society; aside from the rantings of racial factions that stand to profit by re-opening old wounds which Mr. O‘Connor, for his own personal self-interest, has been happy to accommodate. Although I am not totally convinced that Mr. O‘Connor (privately) subscribes to the archaic notions oftentimes conveyed to his readers, his transparent agendum however, apparent to those properly schooled in divisive matters, must continue to sow confusion and reap resentment among the uninitiated and other individuals who are otherwise straddling the fence; whose (own) imbedded impressions about Race continue to color their thinking. In Mr. O‘Connor‘s ―distorted‖ world view, Race is the social hemophiliac and he the annoying prick that needles our collective ―conscience‖. His (own) twisted sense of self-righteousness has stunted the Evolution of Character that is normally required to promote healing on all levels. Mr. O‘Connor is not interested in all that, however, because racial healing would not play to his advantage. On the other hand, perhaps I have mis-read his motives. Writing on a variety of subject matters is a difficult, if not daunting task for any journalist of limited scope and talent. To Mr.

O‘Connor‘s credit, however, single-dimensional as he has oftentimes proven himself to be, what he cooks, he cooks fairly well.

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

December 9th 2001

To the Editor:

A couple of months ago, a college professor addressing an anti-war rally at Brown University, attended by a student gathering of budding left-wingers, expressed his approval over the terrorist assault (September 11th 2001) on the Pentagon Building calling it an appropriate response to ―American Imperialism‖ while gratuitously ridiculing the American Flag as a symbol of ―fascistic oppression‖

best suited for ―toilette paper‖. His caustic remarks provoked a number of (unformed) thoughts in my mind including but not limited to 1) the boundaries separating treasonous statements from free speech 2) plausible grounds calling for his immediate dismissal 3) the appalling lack of character and common sense conspicuously absent among (so-called) Intellectuals and (dis-engaging) parents (refer to John Walker Lindh) who casually dismiss the questionable attitudes and positions adopted by their children while routinely footing the bill for their college tuitions and 4) more recently, a former relief pitcher for the Atlanta Braves (John Rocker) who was sentenced by the court of public opinion to perform community service after making unsavory remarks to a newspaper reporter about Gays and African Americans inconsistent with the (civic) requirements of social and politically correct conventions. Mr. Rocker was summarily taken to task by the mainstream media and unceremoniously given his unconditional release. This (tenured) professor, I understand, is still ―teaching‖ at the university. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that treason, as it was once (properly) understood, is on the verge of extinction; elasticized out of the American Constitution by the penumbral dynamics governing free speech in whatever form that may otherwise antagonize the well-bred standards of decency and good taste; depending, of course, on the topic and the person doing the talking!

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

February 22nd 2002

To the Editor:

In his ―Death of the West‖, Patrick J. Buchanan recalls the Republican Party‘s national electoral achievements; winning presidential elections in 1968, 1972 (Landslide), 1980, 1984 (Landslide) and 1988 (Landslide) however losing ground in the Cultural War. I am not convinced, however, that the party‘s (so-called) failure was due entirely to an absence of Will, although some Republicans have arguably abandoned the good fight over ―divisive‖ issues that many perceive might otherwise jeopardize their political standing among moderate or left-leaning voters, but rather to a concentration of judicial/political power vested in our nation‘s courts and among its political supporters who, until quite recently, enjoyed large majorities in both Houses of Congress. What I find surprising, however, is that many were/are routinely elected from traditionally conservative districts and states. Prevailing wisdom, I suppose, informed the 157

party that it would perhaps be more expedient to go along to get along; an adopted attitude commonly referred to as me-tooism.

(Perhaps an absence of Principle would be more appropriate)

The Democratic Party seized control of (the) socio/cultural debate by ―default‖; that is to say, by controlling the economic purse strings that ran interference for an (increasingly) left-winged agenda out of step with mainstream opinion. It didn‘t seem to matter much provided everyone was receiving his or her fair share of the pie. In a word, local tribute silenced the critics while Big Government went along its merry way advancing a socialist agenda designed to undermine traditional social values while gradually de-legitimizing the standing principles of Western Culture. In retrospect, this was an astonishing accomplishment considering the many congressmen and senators far too numerous to mention, George McGovern (South Dakota) and Frank Church (Idaho) quickly come to mind, who emerged from the American Heartland. No matter as long as everyone was being properly taken care of!

In another manner, consistent with their socialistic agenda, America‘s growing entitlement mentality impressed by soaring economic expectations (Material Status) and artificially contrived victimhood (Historical ―Grievances‖) provided further ―cause‖ for government spending that ultimately achieved a remarkably high social rate of return on its ―investment‖. The greater irony was/is the failure of otherwise clear-thinking individuals to recognize that such spending, on a number of levels, was/is oftentimes a break-even proposition with no clear-cut winners however a high number of discernable losers. I speak not of material losses but spiritual losses, as well. This in addition to liberal judges who have routinely used the bench to advance their own private prejudices without the formal consent of the governed; by judicial fiat and questionable constitutional interpretations conforming to their world views. In this manner our oligarchical courts have evolved into ideological breeding grounds for ―progressive‖ reforms and social engineering where voter expression(s) are routinely overturned.

One final point, I am not in complete agreement with Mr. Buchanan‘s global assessment and its role in all this. That he believes Globalization will hasten economic disparities and further class and racial conflicts thereby drawing attention from matters of cultural importance to more pressing needs like food, clothing and shelter will be determined in its own good time. The Industrial Revolution produced similar anxieties calling for a more compassionate economic reforms (Socialism) to replace a disinterested system (Capitalism) insensitive to the increasing requirements of working men and women. The genius behind Capitalism, however, is that it is self-correcting whenever left to its own market devices. This was proven after twelve years of government tinkering failed to get our nation out of the Great Depression. Mr. Buchanan may have a point however by arguing that Globalization is likely to undermine loyalty to national culture once ―natural‖ boundaries begin overlapping and new frontiers are formed. It would not be the first time, however, that evolving cultures have compromised traditional arrangements. Such events are oftentimes consequential rather than intentional. Great nations and civilizations have been defining and re-fining themselves for centuries. None are or ever have been exempt from the inevitable dynamics of movement and change. Such are historical certainties. The question we should be asking ourselves is how long will it take for the world community to evolve into something new? My hunch is, in today‘s fast paced, mobilized environments, sooner than one might expect!

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

March 24th 2002

To the Editor:

Emerging accusations of pedophilia directed against the Catholic Church have promoted a groundswell of opportunity for the political left, that for years has sought every means to discredit an institution that arguably remains the final bastion of traditional religious and moral values in modern times. Therefore, it is not surprising that its opponents are unlikely to redeem that which they ultimately seek to destroy. The Church has been subject to a variety of attacks by non-believers, secularists and ―reformers‖ over the centuries. That it has managed to contest and repel any number of assaults by its detractors says less about the resiliency of its defenders, perhaps, than its principle appeal, that all things considered, has superseded the sporadic misplacement of confidence and questionable examples of those (otherwise) entrusted to its care. That having been said, I neither seek to ―forgive‖, in the manner that such transgressions must be quickly taken to task, nor explain away improper conduct upsetting to thoughtful Christians who have been raised to unconditionally accept church teachings without misgivings. I find troubling, however, the egregious assailing of a favored political target. More disturbing is the sudden indignation of professed Catholics, who, however ―well-meaning‖, are unwittingly supporting the political machinations that are using pedophilia as a catalyst to advance a broader agenda aimed at undermining the traditional foundations of the Church.

Recent events embarrassing to the Church should be properly understood as microcosms of the moral failings of an increasingly dysfunctional society that has given free rein to the inherent short-comings of individuals of weak or questionable character rather than the regarded failings of the Church (qua) Church. I agree that such inappropriate behavior should be quickly censored and prosecuted before further harm is done. Whether it is appropriate to seek mercy rather than justice, I will leave for others to decide. In what manner am I qualified to arbitrate the collective shortcomings of diseased individuals who have promoted spiritual hardship on so many young children on so many emotional levels?

Respectfully

Al Baldi

158

• • •

April 28th 2002

To the Editor:

Recent events following, what seems like an eternity, the national catastrophe of September 11th 2001; I am referring specifically to the emergence of mass demonstrations orchestrated by political activists from the Jewish and Arab Communities and other groups mutually sympathetic to their anti-war agenda, that effectively amounts to bringing the war to our shores, runs counter with how, until (relatively) recent times, most Americans historically responded during time(s) of national crisis. This is not Vietnam. America did not precipitate the events leading up to those unprovoked attack(s) on its own Soil! So where‘s the dis-connect? The duties of citizenship are not always conditioned by choice. Every citizen, in one way or another, is expected to participate in a constructive manner that accrues to the mutual benefit of every citizen living in a free and open society; that each individual is obligated to lend his or her unqualified, excepting such conditions were that society has spiritually and morally corrupted itself, support in the cause of freedom; and that the general welfare of that society should take precedence over the private belief system of any individual who continues reaping the benefits of living in that society . In a word, every citizen has a reciprocal civic responsibility for every other citizen to ensure their mutual safety; but not to secure a ―peace‖ at any price. Such (lofty) ideals neither profess nor encourage the overriding of critical or independent thinking provided such expressions neither conflict with nor seek to negate another individual‘s right to equally express his or her own private opinions or place that individual in HARM‘S WAY. A well-order society requires the cooperation of all its citizens; that they work at resolving their differences in manner bounded by common goals, apart from common ideology, if that society hopes to flourish and sustain itself.

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

July 13th 2002

To the Editor:

The Supreme Court, by a six to three margin, recently ruled that the mentally retarded could not be subject to the Death Penalty on the basis of ―evolving standards of decency‖, whatever that means. The majority were no doubt moved by questions of competency. Fair enough. Nevertheless, this remarkable decision should demand closer scrutiny by reasonable men and women over the question of competency as such vaguely defined standards may apply to certain individuals of ―limited‖ intelligence or stunted emotional development that (supposedly) renders their ability to make sound judgment problematical; yet for all intent and purposes, however, seem sufficiently capable of leading normal, productive lives; and whose marginal ―deficiencies‖ are not considered in any manner an impediment to the legal requirements respective of property and person. Such thinking, lost on society‘s more ―progressive‖ elements, implies a foundation of correct thinking that should otherwise enable a person of limited capacity to make reasonably sound decisions.

Arguably, most of us, however limited in other respects, possess an intuitive grasp of right and wrong.

This ruling quickly called to mind Civil Rights arguments presented before the Court by the A.C.L.U. a few years earlier raising constitutional questions whether or not an individual could be kept in a psychiatric institution against his or her own free will even if that individual had undergone a thorough psychiatric evaluation and had been evaluated incompetent to make decisions on his or her own behalf. That the unconditional discharge of an individual in dire need of medical attention who might otherwise pose a threat to society if not that individual, for that matter, was not the overriding factor in their decision. The court, in its infinite wisdom, determined that such practices, (confinement) without first obtaining the consent of that individual……………yes, by all means, confine me!…….. constituted an infringement of that individual‘s Civil Liberties. What nonsense! Well, the rest is, as they say, history. Tragically, those in serious need of treatment and proper medical supervision were summarily discharged and ushered into the streets to fend for themselves. (Such compassion by the liberal community is truly heart-warming) It should not be surprising to anyone that some had prior histories of violence. This egregious decision by our legal men and women in hallowed garbs was applauded by liberals and civil libertarians alike who reasoned tis better to err on the side of Liberty rather than Public Safety. One may only conjecture whether the mis-guided designs of our justices and their ideological supporters would find such individuals competent enough to stand trial after committing some unlawful act or competent in whatever manner, for that matter, to serve time in prison if they were found guilty in a court of law.

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

November 23rd 2002

To the Editor:

Recent accusations have re-surfaced from the political-left suggesting that the United States Government was in some manner (indirectly) responsible for Saddam Huessin‘s systematic annihilation of targeted political and cultural groups by arming his government with conventional weapons as well as (purportedly) providing it with the technology needed to develop his nation‘s 159

chemical, biological and nuclear programs in the early 1980‘s. Such accusations are transparent ploys aimed at 1) discrediting Republican Administrations 2) diverting attention from Mr. Huessin‘s criminally inhumane treatment of his (own) people 3) placing the events of September 11th 2001 squarely on our (America‘s) shoulders. These partisan ruses, designed to confuse and mislead the American People, constitute articles of specious reasoning that, carried to its illogical conclusion, might (otherwise) seek to shift part of the blame for the Japanese ―surprise‖ attack on Pearl Harbor on America for selling Japan the raw materials, including steel, used to develop its military complex including the very planes that bombed our harbor! Such fingering pointing and posturing designed to score political points at the expense of our nation‘s national security is perhaps even more troubling than the wholesaling of destructive weapons.

Balance of Power seldom aligns itself with Duty and Honor; more so, perhaps, with the (incidental) prospect(s) for economic gain.

Such ―side effects‖ were properly observed during America‘s Civil War. A number of multi-national arms/munitions concerns sold war material to both sides of the conflict without regard for winners or losers or cause, for that matter. I am not attempting to strike definitive comparisons but state, rather, that the profit motive‘s natural course is oftentimes that of least resistance, unencumbered by matters of Conscience best left to moralists and serious thinkers to reason out. Its overriding mission, putting it quite simply, is to make a buck. The political opponents of the present administration might choose to carefully weigh the (uncertain) consequences that are (certain) to arise by lending legitimacy to world leaders whose questionable character and destabilizing military designs should provide thoughtful pause. Such thinking should equally apply to both sides of the political aisle. The ―see no evil‖, ―speak no evil‖

denials adopted by industrialized nations, (there is plenty of blame to go around), is setting the stage where the prospect for economic gain must inevitably engender our mutual destruction. It is hopeful that reasonable nations will soon come to appreciate the consequences of their (seemingly) indifference to world peace. Although recent events should raise questions about our collective wisdom, those pushing the buttons must ultimately be held accountable for their (own) decided actions.

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

February 26th 2003

To the Editor:

I don‘t believe that America has ever fully recovered from the Vietnam War. Such arguments that divided our nation over the years, and until quite recently, seemed to lapse into remission, have once again re-surfaced; although historical events and characters have changed. In retrospect, the Vietnam Syndrome is no more or no less a symptom rooted in an ideological disease that has gradually blended into the American mindset. That (certain) scars never completely heal is evidenced by recent demonstrations protesting America‘s pending war with Iraq. Iraq, it seems, has re-opened old wounds; or given life new meaning, rather, to hard-boiled sixties/seventies activists. It has superseded Vietnam as the metaphoric symbol of American ―Hegemony‖. (After all, was Saddam Huessin responsible in any manner for the events of September 11th 2001? Isn‘t this really all about Oil?) Such notions are easily ascertainable by the emergence of racial/ethnic coalitions that have teamed-up with (mainstreamed) traditional ones coaching them from the side-lines. They further explain the phenomenon of multi-culturalism and its balkanize agenda calling for a new social order replacing homogenous ones. Once again we are hearing the familiar rallying cries of racism, inequality, poverty and injustice that have no clear meaning to the war itself other than it is being waged against a ―darker‖ race. As was the case in Vietnam, we note a troubling embracing of our nation‘s enemies. The who, what or why‘s are of no particular importance inasmuch whomsoever is an enemy of America is a friend of ours! We are once again reminded that America‘s foreign and domestic policies are the seminal ingredients that have engendered everything that is wicked in the world today. There is no question that the advent of recent hostilities, now elevated to a higher level, has re-awakened the dormant passions of tired old leftists (and their younger converts) who view this war as an opportunity to re-enact their most singularly egregious achievement; the discrediting of American Institutions. That the war in Afghanistan was dealt with swiftly and with minimal losses is not so much a blessing for those who privately hope for our defeat; thereby belying the underlying assumptions that have defined our great nation for so many years. We are in the throes of Western Civilization‘s greatest crisis; the challenge for its own (immediate) survival! What makes the times we live so unlike others is an emerging death-wish that, assisted by socially ―passive‖ dynamics, ―conscience‖ and self-hate, is unconsciously seeking its own destruction. America and other Western Nations needs to overcome their own neuroses before History quickly passes them by.

Respectfully

Al Baldi

• • •

April 12th 2003

To the Editor:

A friend and I were recently engaged in an after dinner conversation concerning the potential economic fallout that the war in Iraq would likely impose on France. My friend, an ardent opponent of the war and therefore sympathetic with France‘s decision not to support it, suggested that it would be minimal, given that nation‘s strategic economic presence in the United States and European Marketplace(s) relative to its ―negligible‖ Middle Eastern interests. How was I to argue? I am neither an economist nor a clairvoyant 160

and therefore not in any position to predict, with any degree of accuracy, how the French economy would likely be affected. My hunch, however, is that its short-term outlook won‘t be a pleasant one considering the formidable loss of revenue (―flowing‖) from its oil contracts and other capital investments in the region. Let‘s propose for a moment, and this is purely hypothetical, some arbitrary number: a decrease in GDP of, let‘s say 5%, that on the surface doesn‘t seem like a significant number. In what manner would this

―nominal‖ decline in revenue impact, assuming that it does, the French economy? It wouldn‘t take much imagination to predict the

―multiple‖ effect such a reduction would have on social services, for example, in a nation already reeling from chronically high (12%) unemployment rates.

Let‘s imagine the impact it would have on America‘s fine-tuned economy, for that matter, if its unemployment rate were to suddenly increase a couple of percentage points because of ―marginal‖ declines in productivity and subsequent revenue (and profits). Imagine the rippling effect on a number of industries that are tightly inter-woven, nor to mention its own impact on the nation‘s ability to adequately fund its own entitlement programs that, in turn, would subsequently trigger higher inflation resulting from higher (consumer) prices precipitated by lower productivity levels that would (likely) lead to higher taxes that would (more than likely) discourage investment that would (most likely) generate even lower revenues than before. Be that what it may, France‘s troubling economy can ill-afford a diminishing role in the Middle East which arguably explains its reluctance to upset the status quo, if I‘m permitted to put it so bluntly. Such an event would inevitably upset the macro-economic balance vital to the inflow/outflow of monies.

Such may explain its sudden angst over its future role in the ―rehabilitating‖ of Iraq. Sacre Bleu!

Respe