In one of posts on the string "Two things all Americans--liberal, conservative, and independent--have reason to be proud of," I mentioned that I was going to post a quote I had read.
Sorry I didn't get around to it on that string, but to tell the truth that string kind of ran off the rails and I thought it was about time for it to end, so I have quit posting to it (or for that matter reading it, if any of you are still posting).
Anyway, I thought that this quote was something you would all like to read. It comes from a book written by A. J. Liebling, who wrote for New Yorker magazine, and was written in 1942. The title was "The Road Back To Paris," which was a rather optomistic when it was written because the closest we were to Paris at the time was a toehold in North Africa.
The comment is an unusual one, and the fact that it was expressed at the time we were engaged in a war we were not winning at the moment makes it doubly interesting. Anyway, here it is.
It's 1941. He's speaking about the way London looked, and the buildup of men and materiel, and speculating on the coming course of the in vasion of Europe.
"I knew that the quality of American troops would be good, once they had paid their entry fee with a couple of bobbles, because Americans are the best competitors on Earth. A basketball game between two high school teams at home will call forth enough hardness of soul and flexibility of ethic to win a minor war; the will to win in Americans is so strong it is painful, and it is unfettered by any of the polite flummery that goes with cricket. This ruthelessness always in stock is one our national resources."
Never heard a comment like that anywhere before.
I might add in passing that you may find it to be a day or two between my posts. I'm getting tighter and tighter for time. When I first started up this blog I only used to post every three or four days, but daily posting has become a habit, a nice one, but one I may not be able to maintain for a while.
I read a Letter to the Editor which really jarred me.
It was about people not stopping at the stop signs in an area west of the airport. It started out rather reasonable, making it sound like people are actually "running" stop signs over there.
But as I read on I began to wonder exactly what the writer meant by when he said "running."
He quoted ARS 28-855-B and then said, "That means means especially not [a rolling stop]. It means stop!"
"Uh-oh!" I thought. "Is he serious? Does he really think that every car should come to a complete and absolute halt at every stop sign?"
If that rule were enforced everyone in Payson would receive four or four citations each time he drove. And so would I, even though we all come to a complete stop when it's appropriate.
He also stated that he asked a Payson police officer about it and was told that a rolling stop is okay "...so long as it's not over 5 mph."
I'm sorry, but I really have a problem with that. I just don't think a police officer would say it, and I'm not going to believe it until I see the officer's name along with the quote. I could be very wrong, and I am ready to admit it if I am, and even to apologize for doubting it, but I just can't make myself believe it.
Then the writer suggests that the city should up its revenue by ticketing every single person who doesn't come to a complete and absolute stop. Oh boy! Wouldn't that go over big!
Then he makes a threat that the city will be sued for not enforcing the law if someone is killed or injured as a result.
But then he really goes off the deep by saying that "...several people in the neighborhood are now carrying guns during their walks." And adding, "Will it take someone being hit or the alternative -- someone being shot?"
Now that is going too far!
In the first place how do you stop a car by shooting either it or its driver? You better be packin an RPG. And I sincerely mean it when I say I hope some overzealous, pistol-packin citizen doesn't take it in mind to whip out a gun and brandish it at some driver, because if he does he'll be arrested and charged with a felony for breaking a law with far greater consequences than just rolling up to a stop sign, taking a look around, and continuing safely on.
To be honest, I wonder if the writer even owns a gun? People who talk about using one in such a casual manner rarely do.
Which, I might point out, is probably a good thing.
An odd letter, A really odd letter.
As I said, it really jarred me. I sympathize very strongly with anyone who is having problems with people who drive dangerously, but I don't think a properly executed rolling stop is anything to go ballistic over.
I think you folks have pretty much said it all, particularly except on the question of premeditation.
I can comment on that from personal experience. And, as it happens, on an eight year old.
Early in 1942 I was walking along Ward's Hill on Staten Island In New York City. I came across a kid I knew from my neighborhood who was, as it happens in the second grade, an eight year old (been left back). He was begging another kid in his class not to "tell" on him. It had to do with the fact that the other kid had caught him and another boy--don't know who--doing something nasty, don't know what.
We all started walking back toward the road that ran uphill from my neighborhood, and in the process we passed a series of apartment buildings that had been cut into the hill on Victory Boulevard right near the old Victory Theater. They were three stories tall and there was a three story high retaining wall that had absolutely no protection for anyone walking along the hill above it. In other words, if you were stupid enough you could walk along the top of a three story high wall overlooking a concrete courtyard below.
As we passed the wall, about ten feet from it on a low slope, this conversation occurred:
Kid from my neighborhood, talking to me: "Push him off. Push him off."
Me: "Huh?"
"Push him him off. Kill him."
Me: Don't remember, except that I demurred.
The kid asked me again several times to push the other kid off the wall and kill him, saying that if I didn't do it the other kid would "rat" on him in school on Monday. And he wasn't kidding about wanting the other kid dead because when I kept on saying no, he tried it himself, and if I hadn't stopped him he would perhaps have succeeded because the other kid was by far smaller and weaker.
If that would not have been "premeditated murder" then I don't know the meaning of the term.
In may very well be that someone that young cannot, or should not, be legally charged with that specific crime. I won't comment on that either way because I don't feel qualified to. The thrust of this string was that it would be almost impossible to convict an eight year old of murder, not whether or not it was "right." But to say that an eight year old is "incapable" of premeditated murder is, in my opinion, based on my own personal experience, arrant nonsense.
Psychologists are not my favorite people. I once thought of taking my undergraduate degree in psychology, and to that end had taken a large number of psychology and sociology courses. But the deeper I got into the subject the more I disagreed with certain fundamental premises because they were not based on scientific evidence but merely on the statements of so called "authorities." As a result, I opted for hard core science and am glad I did.
By the way, folks, after I pressed the Post Comment button for the last post it was taking a long time for the comment to post. Whenever that happens on the blog I just click on my stop button. I don't know why it happens, but if you do that and then go look at the home page you'll see that post is there, so you can do the same thing without losing anything. My guess is that once in a while some glitch in the program that runs the online Roundup gets it into and endless loop after it actually posts the comment. Clicking on the stop button on your browser will get you out of the loop.
"My son and daughter and many other people I know have severe allergies to burning cedar or other smoke. My daughter has been sick for the last 3 weeks, don't know if it is the flu shot, smoke or a combination. She has been to ER 5 times. Was finally given a breathing machine for her to use at home. My son walks around wiping his nose and eyes and coughing. Neither have been able to lay down and sleep because of the congestion from the smoke."
Never considered that side of it. Sorry to hear of their troubles.
Ron,
"It is one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don't” situations for the Forest Service."
I think you hit the nail right on the head.
The way things are going these days I can foresee three eventualities:
1. The environmentalists filing lawsuits against the Forest Service.
2. Some legislator writing a law that requires smoke suppression equipment on homes.
3. Another legislator writing a law that new homes cannot be built with wood burning fireplaces or stoves.
On the lighter side, back in 1943 I read a Pogo the Possom comic book that belonged to the kid downstairs (who, by the way, had an entire toy chest full of comic books). If you remember Pogo, he had three mice troublemakers in the cartoon named Bewitched, Bothered, and Bemildred (not a misspelling). One day the three mice had gotten into a house and were pigging out on the contents of some dirty cooking utensils. One of them asked another one if he had tried a particular pot yet. The answer was, "I'm not on pot. I'm on pan."
Naturally, that comment went right over my 11 year old head, not to mention going over the head of the editors of the line of magazines, the police, and everyone else. Except, I suppose, those of the pot heads in the art world.
It wasn't until years later--about 50 of them--that I remembered that and finally understood the comment.
I probably should add that I think I was a bit too hard on AJ. I just have a problem with the Hollywood scene. So false. So hyped up. It was bad enough back when I was a kid, but the whole thing has gone over the top these days. And the films they make today--or at least the ones I see previews of on rare occasion--are so empty of content it scares me.
I'd like to see the return of flms like "The Razor's Edge," or "Lost Horizon," or "Khartoum," or even a good western. I will say that "Saving Private Ryan" was about as good as they get, but the ratio of good stuff to tripe is alarming.
I've got to tell you, Pat, you surprised me that time, but maybe you have a point.
On the other hand I'm sitting here waiting to see what Shovelhead comes up with regarding your comment.
Bet it's a whiz-banger.
I've been think about subscribing to one of the news magazines but I don't know whether or not they too are badly biased in their reporting. Somehow, I can't believe they would be. Anybody got any ideas on that one?
You make a very good point. In fact I agree with you as far as the electroniic news media is concerned and am concerned about whether or not it was wise to bring up the subject here.
I very well may have made an error, but it was out of genuine concern.
Susan,
"That's what concerns me."
Yeah, that's what Pat said, and it's a valid point, highly valid in fact.
Leeta,
"As far as I'm concerned you should shut your mouth."
A bit strongly worded, but a point well taken, as I've already told Pat and Susan.
"I didn't vote for Obama but I'm very concerned about your objectives. You scare me."
Leeta, quite frankly I find the insinuation in your comment to be insulting and uncalled for. Quite plainly you are saying that I want to see Obama assassinated. My concern was genuine, and fully in character for me, as you can prove to yourself by going back over the more than 2,000 posts I've put up here and seeing how I feel about violence. Not to mention the posts that you will find where I strongly supported Obama in his run for the Democratic nomination. I may have chosen John McCain over Obama, but that's a perfectly legitimate choice. Futhermore, my first comment after the smoke cleared was that we should all now support Obama. You might also search out the comments I've made about Martin Luther King on this forum, and those posts where I mention the seven years I spent at the same rank in the Air Force despite the fact that I had outstanding performance reports. Reason? I twice put my head on the chopping block by coming to the aid of blacks who were being dealt with unfairly. In one case I lost the fight, but in the other I saved a man from a prosecution which would have resulted in his being thrown out of the service.
I think you owe me an apology. I'm waiting for it!
21 November 2008 at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
In one of posts on the string "Two things all Americans--liberal, conservative, and independent--have reason to be proud of," I mentioned that I was going to post a quote I had read.
Sorry I didn't get around to it on that string, but to tell the truth that string kind of ran off the rails and I thought it was about time for it to end, so I have quit posting to it (or for that matter reading it, if any of you are still posting).
Anyway, I thought that this quote was something you would all like to read. It comes from a book written by A. J. Liebling, who wrote for New Yorker magazine, and was written in 1942. The title was "The Road Back To Paris," which was a rather optomistic when it was written because the closest we were to Paris at the time was a toehold in North Africa.
The comment is an unusual one, and the fact that it was expressed at the time we were engaged in a war we were not winning at the moment makes it doubly interesting. Anyway, here it is.
It's 1941. He's speaking about the way London looked, and the buildup of men and materiel, and speculating on the coming course of the in vasion of Europe.
"I knew that the quality of American troops would be good, once they had paid their entry fee with a couple of bobbles, because Americans are the best competitors on Earth. A basketball game between two high school teams at home will call forth enough hardness of soul and flexibility of ethic to win a minor war; the will to win in Americans is so strong it is painful, and it is unfettered by any of the polite flummery that goes with cricket. This ruthelessness always in stock is one our national resources."
Never heard a comment like that anywhere before.
I might add in passing that you may find it to be a day or two between my posts. I'm getting tighter and tighter for time. When I first started up this blog I only used to post every three or four days, but daily posting has become a habit, a nice one, but one I may not be able to maintain for a while.
On As promised, though a bit late.
21 November 2008 at 1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
I read a Letter to the Editor which really jarred me.
It was about people not stopping at the stop signs in an area west of the airport. It started out rather reasonable, making it sound like people are actually "running" stop signs over there.
But as I read on I began to wonder exactly what the writer meant by when he said "running."
He quoted ARS 28-855-B and then said, "That means means especially not [a rolling stop]. It means stop!"
"Uh-oh!" I thought. "Is he serious? Does he really think that every car should come to a complete and absolute halt at every stop sign?"
If that rule were enforced everyone in Payson would receive four or four citations each time he drove. And so would I, even though we all come to a complete stop when it's appropriate.
He also stated that he asked a Payson police officer about it and was told that a rolling stop is okay "...so long as it's not over 5 mph."
I'm sorry, but I really have a problem with that. I just don't think a police officer would say it, and I'm not going to believe it until I see the officer's name along with the quote. I could be very wrong, and I am ready to admit it if I am, and even to apologize for doubting it, but I just can't make myself believe it.
Then the writer suggests that the city should up its revenue by ticketing every single person who doesn't come to a complete and absolute stop. Oh boy! Wouldn't that go over big!
Then he makes a threat that the city will be sued for not enforcing the law if someone is killed or injured as a result.
But then he really goes off the deep by saying that "...several people in the neighborhood are now carrying guns during their walks." And adding, "Will it take someone being hit or the alternative -- someone being shot?"
Now that is going too far!
In the first place how do you stop a car by shooting either it or its driver? You better be packin an RPG. And I sincerely mean it when I say I hope some overzealous, pistol-packin citizen doesn't take it in mind to whip out a gun and brandish it at some driver, because if he does he'll be arrested and charged with a felony for breaking a law with far greater consequences than just rolling up to a stop sign, taking a look around, and continuing safely on.
To be honest, I wonder if the writer even owns a gun? People who talk about using one in such a casual manner rarely do.
Which, I might point out, is probably a good thing.
An odd letter, A really odd letter.
As I said, it really jarred me. I sympathize very strongly with anyone who is having problems with people who drive dangerously, but I don't think a properly executed rolling stop is anything to go ballistic over.
On Do you come to a complete stop at every stop sign?
21 November 2008 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Ruby,
Once again I guess I'll take your advice. Too bad. I'd love to be able to get unbiased news. Guess it just isn't going to happen.
Except for local news. For that I just have to ask Pat what's really going on. :-)
On We all know how you do it, AJ.
21 November 2008 at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
I think you folks have pretty much said it all, particularly except on the question of premeditation.
I can comment on that from personal experience. And, as it happens, on an eight year old.
Early in 1942 I was walking along Ward's Hill on Staten Island In New York City. I came across a kid I knew from my neighborhood who was, as it happens in the second grade, an eight year old (been left back). He was begging another kid in his class not to "tell" on him. It had to do with the fact that the other kid had caught him and another boy--don't know who--doing something nasty, don't know what.
We all started walking back toward the road that ran uphill from my neighborhood, and in the process we passed a series of apartment buildings that had been cut into the hill on Victory Boulevard right near the old Victory Theater. They were three stories tall and there was a three story high retaining wall that had absolutely no protection for anyone walking along the hill above it. In other words, if you were stupid enough you could walk along the top of a three story high wall overlooking a concrete courtyard below.
As we passed the wall, about ten feet from it on a low slope, this conversation occurred:
Kid from my neighborhood, talking to me: "Push him off. Push him off."
Me: "Huh?"
"Push him him off. Kill him."
Me: Don't remember, except that I demurred.
The kid asked me again several times to push the other kid off the wall and kill him, saying that if I didn't do it the other kid would "rat" on him in school on Monday. And he wasn't kidding about wanting the other kid dead because when I kept on saying no, he tried it himself, and if I hadn't stopped him he would perhaps have succeeded because the other kid was by far smaller and weaker.
If that would not have been "premeditated murder" then I don't know the meaning of the term.
In may very well be that someone that young cannot, or should not, be legally charged with that specific crime. I won't comment on that either way because I don't feel qualified to. The thrust of this string was that it would be almost impossible to convict an eight year old of murder, not whether or not it was "right." But to say that an eight year old is "incapable" of premeditated murder is, in my opinion, based on my own personal experience, arrant nonsense.
Psychologists are not my favorite people. I once thought of taking my undergraduate degree in psychology, and to that end had taken a large number of psychology and sociology courses. But the deeper I got into the subject the more I disagreed with certain fundamental premises because they were not based on scientific evidence but merely on the statements of so called "authorities." As a result, I opted for hard core science and am glad I did.
On Try an 8 year old kid as an adult?
21 November 2008 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
By the way, folks, after I pressed the Post Comment button for the last post it was taking a long time for the comment to post. Whenever that happens on the blog I just click on my stop button. I don't know why it happens, but if you do that and then go look at the home page you'll see that post is there, so you can do the same thing without losing anything. My guess is that once in a while some glitch in the program that runs the online Roundup gets it into and endless loop after it actually posts the comment. Clicking on the stop button on your browser will get you out of the loop.
On Where there's smoke there ain't no fire.
21 November 2008 at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Pat,
"My son and daughter and many other people I know have severe allergies to burning cedar or other smoke. My daughter has been sick for the last 3 weeks, don't know if it is the flu shot, smoke or a combination. She has been to ER 5 times. Was finally given a breathing machine for her to use at home. My son walks around wiping his nose and eyes and coughing. Neither have been able to lay down and sleep because of the congestion from the smoke."
Never considered that side of it. Sorry to hear of their troubles.
Ron,
"It is one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don't” situations for the Forest Service."
I think you hit the nail right on the head.
The way things are going these days I can foresee three eventualities:
1. The environmentalists filing lawsuits against the Forest Service.
2. Some legislator writing a law that requires smoke suppression equipment on homes.
3. Another legislator writing a law that new homes cannot be built with wood burning fireplaces or stoves.
On Where there's smoke there ain't no fire.
21 November 2008 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Mike,
Careful. Don't talk about pot.
Big Bro, you know?
On the lighter side, back in 1943 I read a Pogo the Possom comic book that belonged to the kid downstairs (who, by the way, had an entire toy chest full of comic books). If you remember Pogo, he had three mice troublemakers in the cartoon named Bewitched, Bothered, and Bemildred (not a misspelling). One day the three mice had gotten into a house and were pigging out on the contents of some dirty cooking utensils. One of them asked another one if he had tried a particular pot yet. The answer was, "I'm not on pot. I'm on pan."
Naturally, that comment went right over my 11 year old head, not to mention going over the head of the editors of the line of magazines, the police, and everyone else. Except, I suppose, those of the pot heads in the art world.
It wasn't until years later--about 50 of them--that I remembered that and finally understood the comment.
On My best shot at the "liberal slur" thing.
20 November 2008 at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
I probably should add that I think I was a bit too hard on AJ. I just have a problem with the Hollywood scene. So false. So hyped up. It was bad enough back when I was a kid, but the whole thing has gone over the top these days. And the films they make today--or at least the ones I see previews of on rare occasion--are so empty of content it scares me.
I'd like to see the return of flms like "The Razor's Edge," or "Lost Horizon," or "Khartoum," or even a good western. I will say that "Saving Private Ryan" was about as good as they get, but the ratio of good stuff to tripe is alarming.
On We all know how you do it, AJ.
20 November 2008 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
I've got to tell you, Pat, you surprised me that time, but maybe you have a point.
On the other hand I'm sitting here waiting to see what Shovelhead comes up with regarding your comment.
Bet it's a whiz-banger.
I've been think about subscribing to one of the news magazines but I don't know whether or not they too are badly biased in their reporting. Somehow, I can't believe they would be. Anybody got any ideas on that one?
On We all know how you do it, AJ.
20 November 2008 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…
Pat,
You make a very good point. In fact I agree with you as far as the electroniic news media is concerned and am concerned about whether or not it was wise to bring up the subject here.
I very well may have made an error, but it was out of genuine concern.
Susan,
"That's what concerns me."
Yeah, that's what Pat said, and it's a valid point, highly valid in fact.
Leeta,
"As far as I'm concerned you should shut your mouth."
A bit strongly worded, but a point well taken, as I've already told Pat and Susan.
"I didn't vote for Obama but I'm very concerned about your objectives. You scare me."
Leeta, quite frankly I find the insinuation in your comment to be insulting and uncalled for. Quite plainly you are saying that I want to see Obama assassinated. My concern was genuine, and fully in character for me, as you can prove to yourself by going back over the more than 2,000 posts I've put up here and seeing how I feel about violence. Not to mention the posts that you will find where I strongly supported Obama in his run for the Democratic nomination. I may have chosen John McCain over Obama, but that's a perfectly legitimate choice. Futhermore, my first comment after the smoke cleared was that we should all now support Obama. You might also search out the comments I've made about Martin Luther King on this forum, and those posts where I mention the seven years I spent at the same rank in the Air Force despite the fact that I had outstanding performance reports. Reason? I twice put my head on the chopping block by coming to the aid of blacks who were being dealt with unfairly. In one case I lost the fight, but in the other I saved a man from a prosecution which would have resulted in his being thrown out of the service.
I think you owe me an apology. I'm waiting for it!
On Two things all Americans--liberal, conservative, and independent--have reason to be proud of.