MENTAL POISONING (BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES)

In 1949, a renowned author named George Orwell wrote a novel entitled 1984, which depicted living conditions as they might become by that time. The book envisioned a wholly totalitarian world, with only three gigantic countries remaining in existence, each having derived from territorial conglomeration. They all ruled their citizenry in a terrifying manner, by the simple means of sheer news fabrication. The individual would receive a daily dose of disinformation about wars being fought, subversive activities attempted, and the utter necessity to maintain unceasing patriotic sentiment and loyalty by promptly reporting any suspected offenders to the central authorities. The nation known as Oceania, whose capital lay in London, had identified an anarchist named Emmanuel Goldstein, allegedly leading forces dedicated to undermining the so-called people’s government and everything it stood for. As matters turned out, however, no such person actually lived, having been fabricated to foster universal hatred, a feature most essential to the “inner party’s” undisputed control over the masses.

Although our own year 1984 came and went without the eventuality so grimly described by Mr. Orwell, we can’t help but wonder if our modern society leadership hasn’t been taking a few pages out of his work and putting them to comparable use, albeit not to such extremes. We’d like to cite a few reasons why we harbor suspicion in this regard.

For openers, one of comedian Bob Newhart’s earliest monologue sketches dealt with the presumed need to have created a public figure image for Abraham Lincoln, causing the man to appear somewhat more exciting than his true characteristics would convey. Although only a retroactive spoof, it clearly illustrated the principle of artificially fabricating a persona. The piece accurately mirrored practices known to be carried out today by TV wizards, in order to glorify candidates for office or intended prominence elsewhere.

Additionally, our private DVD collection happens to include certain films, among which are the following, based on situations of a factual or too close for comfort nature:
· Power, wherein a national election becomes a rivalry between image builders representing their respective candidates, with little or no concern over the issues each may be guided by;
· Wag the Dog, with the presidential election prospects getting completely overturned during the last eleven campaign days, by virtue of staging a bogus war scare and a fictitious martyred military hero;
· The Pentagon Papers, a biographical presentation of Daniel Ellsberg’s struggle to make the true Vietnam war results clearly understood, and the government’s two-fisted effort to discredit him;
· Network, a plot Larry King and others in the TV business consider to be pure realism put on film, explaining how the general public can be influenced and motivated solely through overblown or virtually concocted news coverage;
· Finally, JFK, where Oliver Stone endeavors to portray a believable cover-up of the actual circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and its attempt to identify a sole red-tinged young man as the culprit.

The above instances have dealt with two opposite poles, evidencing concentration either on hatred or heroic imagery, sometimes throwing both together. To our mind, each ranks as insidious as the other. Misguiding the multitude definitely falls under bearing false witness, according to the tablets God delivered to Moses. The obvious question has to be whether the U.S. government or the television industry deserves the greater guilt. In our opinion, it’s both, in the form of an ill-conceived, unofficial joint venture.

What we’re busting our tails to drive home in this piece is the extent to which utter phoniness has long been known to prevail at the highest political and show business levels, while the majority goes on blithely accepting the engineered news diet with little reservation.

It’s a foregone conclusion that our government requires a sense of national paranoia at all times, with the best means being through perpetual focus on at least one leading villain in the public eye, á la Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein. Interestingly, a fellow can be transformed from the world’s biggest schmuck into a nice guy almost overnight, whereas in some cases the exact reverse will occur. A few prominent examples from recent decades are shown below.

From mean s.o.b. to reasonably sound citizen, there have been:
· Yasser Arafat;
· Muammar Gadaffi;
· Manuel Ortega.

On the other hand, from half-way decent chap to downright louse, we offer:
· Fidel Castro;
· Manuel Noriega;
· Sadam Hussein.

The most notable feature is that elevating yesterday’s nastiest guy in the universe to today’s top semi-god must invariably be followed by immediate demotion of some new person to prime time satanic status.

Currently, however, we just may have established the all-time greatest villain in modern history, namely the very elusive Osama bin Laden, who’s been ducking our belligerent legions for such a long while that we can’t avoid wondering if such a bloke really does exist as such, or is represented only by photos of some humble middle eastern shepherd. Nevertheless, the sentiment mounted against him has become so overwhelming that our organized propaganda machine now seems to have put all its eggs in one basket.

Be that as it may, until the day arrives when this demonic personage is either slain or captured, we remain somewhat less than convinced about him and his so-called family connections not having been at least partially fabricated. Still, we’ll be more than pleased to acknowledge his evil authenticity, once duly proven.

A NEW EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM BOMBSHELL

As evidenced by an earlier blog article, we aren’t exactly enthralled with the performance qualities exhibited by our collective professorial gentry. It’s now sad to report that we’ve recently discovered yet another specific failing in the educational process.

Having become informally affiliated with the retail guitar trade, we’ve made several new acquaintances who play as amateurs or professionals, some of whom hold music major degrees. What has struck us in the solar plexus more than once lately is the general lack of familiarity displayed regarding mid-20th century jazz greats and their contribution to modern note-producing history.

Without exception, these esteemed diploma-wavers are able to converse somewhat intelligently about Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, Verdi, Debussy, and those other classical cats, having had such names crammed down their throats during classroom days. However, we find ourselves constantly appalled when, upon mentioning Goodman, Ellington, Basie, Dorsey, Miller, and even Brubeck, a blank stare results, followed by a Benny Who, Duke Who, or similar response.

Harking back to our own music class school days, we recall being thoroughly familiarized with outpourings of the “old master” fraternity by the dozen. Contrarily, of course, no teacher seated at the piano or up front alongside the record-player dared admit that “swing bands” were then reigning supreme, with their latest hits being mentally hummed by students galore. Such subject was a strict discussionary no-no.

We long ago wrote off that crew of eunuchal fuddy-duddies as not having been in tune with the times. What else could be expected in such a backward-looking era? Jumping to the present, though, we can’t help but detect a still apparent disdain for the musicianship which steadily evolved from its birth around the 1890s, through the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and onward, having become an established way of life. About the only statement we can utter to those unenlightened ex-students of music is that overworked cliché, “Your education has been sadly neglected”, with all sincerity.

At least we’ve not yet reached the ultimate stage when singers may be the conversational topic, and some youthful wizard pipes up with “Frank Who?”

CONGRATULATIONS TO WASHINGTON

Tanning salons, which tend to proliferate around our country these days, are emporia where relatively pale-skinned folk may be turned into well-bronzed bathing beauties after a few lamp or laser treatments. In some respects, this may be viewed as an extravagance, since the same effect can be achieved less expensively by a day at the beach or an outdoor pool.

Accordingly, that stalwart band of brothers in our two congressional houses has deemed this particular service to approach excessive yuppieness, deciding to levy a 10% federal excise tax on charges for its performance. Senators Laurel, Abbott, Moe, and Larry, along with Representatives Hardy, Costello, Curly, and Keaton have found a way to tack such provision onto that grand and glorious health care reform bill they’ve been debating ad nauseam over for what seems like ages.

There obviously has to be some logic to this step, because we know that United States Senators and Congress(wo)men possess nothing short of our nation’s soundest minds. Nevertheless, we can’t help but wonder what relevance artificial body tanning has to public health care improvement.

Anyway, quite a few small business establishments here and about now stand to suffer a touch of reduced revenue from the more dedicated do-it-yourselfers, not to mention an additional record-keeping and form out-filling burden. Meanwhile, our Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere oil barons will continue enjoying overly abundant annual tax deductions in the form of a percentage depletion allowances, accompanied by others among the wealthier class
who benefit from countless further gimmicks and loopholes reserved for those with more control than the tanning artists over our esteemed legislators.

How can we do anything but take off our hats and bow deeply in the direction of Washington DC, offering homage to our two highly remarkable congressional groups?

SOME VITALLY NEEDED SOCIALISTIC STEPS

Within the past century, countries throughout the world have adopted numerous and varied public healtWh care programs, ranging from totally government-backed setups to that farcical effort the U.S. Congress recently wasted months shouting across the aisles over, before winding up with still one more non-solution to a pressing dilemma. To put the issue squarely on the table, none of those supposedly beneficent schemes has ever worked effectively anywhere. Meanwhile, the human race’s collective physical condition continues to deteriorate, almost by the hour.

The medical world these days never ceases to be involved in a round robin spiral. Doctors’ clinics and hospitals invest with fervent zeal in the latest technically-advanced and increasingly expensive gadgetry for such fundamental tasks as checking temperature, pulse, blood pressure, and the like, as well as treating major or minor ailments. A “keeping up with the Joneses” atmosphere seems to prevail. Costs therefore continue to rise, causing service fees to steadily go up, leading in turn to even less affordable insurance company rates. We certainly can’t be accused of exaggeration in stating that such trend is never going to stop, unless some essential corrective action gets implemented.

Sound logic dictates a single and simple answer to this ungodly mess. What would be wrong with going the full distance, by offering absolutely free care for every male and female citizen or lawful immigrant in this country? We firmly believe that if the Almighty had His druthers, He’d be likely to opt for this sort of arrangement.

Revolutionary or not, we view the following program as mandatory, and with all deliberate speed:
· Providing for needed medical, psychiatric, and dental services to all qualified at no expense, to include doctor and nursing care, hospitalization, surgery, prescribed drugs, orthopedic limbs, canes, wheel chairs, walkers, oxygen, and whatever else may duly apply;
· The foregoing point notwithstanding, exclusion of coverage for abortions, legal or otherwise (honestly feeling the Almighty would want it this way too), surgery of a strictly cosmetic nature, and dental work for mere beautification purposes;
· Compensating doctors, dentists, nurses, and other licensed health care practitioners on a fitting salary scale, subject to annual increase according to experience and/or number of patients treated;

Obviously, this would call for subsidization of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies at government expense, perhaps in the latter case based on accepted and approved research and development achievements.

And now the bombshell:
· Cancelation of all existing health and malpractice insurance plans, as neither being required any longer.

Additionally, inasmuch as a considerable degree of ill health is brought about by poor personal eating and other habits, we’re convinced that the costs of the foregoing plan ought to be covered to a major extent by heavy, heavier, and heaviest taxes on the following products:
· Tobacco in any form;
· Alcoholic beverages, including beer and ale;
· Soft drinks;
· Candy and chewing gum;
· Meat and other foods clinically defined as being of high calorie, high cholesterol, high glucose, contributive to high blood pressure, or comparably harmful.

Furthermore, greater import tariffs should be strongly considered on coffee and cocoa beans, because of their less-than-healthful properties.

Although we deem the above program fine in principle, might we not expect gross abuses to arise? Of course. Everyone knows that. Wouldn’t those vulturous lobbyists who infest Washington and state capitals have a picnic, endeavoring to push through the perennial legislation set to satisfy special interests only? We have no doubt in the slightest. Government bureaucracy would also be sure to rear its ugly head in frightful proportions. Nevertheless, might the overall resultant improvement in public welfare not be apt to outweigh the slings and arrows? We’re inclined to believe so.

Once and for all then, can’t sensible, compassionate heads prevail after so many decades or longer of bickering, unjust treatment, and sheer failure in all health care system undertakings to date?

Any reader who fails to react at least to some degree at the program we’ve sketched out above should be subject to censorship for mental negligence.

THE ELECTRONIC AGE AND ITS HORRORS

It has become quite clear that the makers of electronic gadgetry have successfully taken a page, yea pages, what the hell, chapters from the book so long maintained by the automotive companies during their lush days, promoting dynamic obsolescence. Every new piece of equipment these silicon chip neo-geniuses foist on the market now seems to result in a clamor to visit the nearest sales spot, so the outmoded model purchased just a couple years ago can be tossed into the retirement bin or given to the kids.

Perhaps we’re more conservative than we constantly claim to be, by never appreciating the need to possess the latest pocket-sized or slightly larger device, guaranteed to perform heretofore unimaginable feats, both faster and with more storage capacity than ever envisioned. If so, we must confess to prefer behaving in an old fuddy-duddy manner, rather than like a wide-eyed yuppie. What’s wrong with being content sticking to an earlier version, as long as it does the job satisfactorily?

THE GUY NEXT DOOR

During the years of Ronald Reagan’s presidential tenure, we never ceased viewing him as a man who’d very likely make an ideal next door neighbor, based upon his consistent demeanor while appearing in public. He always seemed like the sort of chap inclined to drop by on occasion for a friendly beer at the kitchen table, or engage in frequent spirited conversation with a fellow back yard grass cutter. It’s no wonder that he enjoyed such immense universal popularity for such a lengthy time period.

In rather sharp contrast, we developed a much different feeling as regards his immediate White House successor, George Bush Sr. Should he be residing that close by, we envision an approximate weekly pounding on our door to proclaim in vociferous tones “Your dog peed
on my shrubbery!”

A LONG AND WELCOME SARTORIAL STRIDE

Whenever we venture out on various excursions for shopping, social events, or other purposes these days, we find it interesting to note the wearing apparel which adorns roughly 95% of the men observed. Clothing once viewed as fit for only a hobo or a hopeless wino is now the accepted mode. The casual look has become the universally accepted male fashion.

Anyone who watches early era movies on television or DVD will see how strictly conservative masculine garb prevailed in those days. Among our best remembered examples was a scene with approximately twenty men grouped together in the stands viewing a hockey game. Without exception, they wore business suits, neckties, and felt hats, more resembling chorus line members than spectators. To our subsequent century eyes, this seemed nothing short of ridiculous. Nevertheless, that's how we chaps were virtually required to drape ourselves much of the time a half-century or so back.

Contrarily today, about the only situations that force a fellow to clad himself thusly occur when sitting in a stuffy board room or attending church services. Being retired, and otherwise not having not occupied a pew for decades, we wouldn't be overly surprised to learn that some might be showing up at both such locations wearing more relaxed duds by now. However, we hold no particular anxiety to check either matter out.

To help the trend along, several latter-day U.S. Presidents have shed such senseless formality as well, when making public appearances under appropriate conditions.

A close acquaintance once described an incident which took place when he was an early teenager (circa 1939), vacationing with older relatives at a rustic cabin resort in the Pennsylvania hills. He showed us a family photo where every person except his father wore casual outfits. In stark dissimilarity, Pop had on a white shirt and a tie -- at an Appalachian wilderness retreat! Furthermore, he'd shaved, after allowing his five o'clock shadow to build up for several days, according to our narrator.

The reason readily became clear, as our friend went on to explain. There was periodic need for someone to drive into the nearest hamlet to seek supplies or whatever. As head of the household, the old man had the procurement obligation, and had groomed himself with due propriety. During those times, a true gentleman never trod the sidewalk without a single-color suit plus a necktie, and likely a hat on top, even in Hickburg, Pa. Besides that, only bums let their beards grow back then. His return had immediately preceded the picture-taking, with only a few minutes to shed his coat and sombrero.

Speaking very candidly, it's a pleasure not having to put up with such false formality any longer. In turn, dare we suppose the day will come when judges and barristers in England's and its many commonwealth countries' courts of law might stop wearing those silly powdered wigs, faggoty cravats, and outmoded robes?