A Response to "A Letter To A Christian Nation", by Sam Harris (Part I)

One of the things my now-atheist son asked me to read concerning his new-found beliefs is a small, slim book entitled A Letter To A Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, published in 2006 by Alfred Knopf.

The book came to him from a friend, but clearly it had belonged at one point to the University of Central Oklahoma Library . . . the book itself is rather small, and short, but well-worn.  It has the characteristic curve of having spent considerable time in someone's pocket.

I read it, as my son asked, with a critical eye toward the book and its contents and what it alleges.  (I had done something similar earlier this year with Muscle And A Shovel, a book my grandmother bought for me.  In that book, I found many good concepts, good facts, but the logic was a little shaky here and there; maybe I'll post something about that one sometime soon.)

Before we start, let me say something about my own views.  I am a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), coming from a family background that stretches between the Disciples and the United Church of Christ.  Historically, these two denominations share a common origin, in the American Restoration movement of the early 1800's, and that origin traces back to (primarily) the Presbyterian Church, though they split from them for many reasons.  One of the key characteristics of the Disciples is that we are very limited in our doctrine:  1) that Christ is the Savior of all mankind and salvation comes from faith in Christ, along with baptism by immersion (though if you come to us from another church with a different baptism tradition, that's fine; we'll re-baptize you if you want--generally--but it's not a requirement); 2) the complete sufficiency of the Bible; and 3) the unity of all believers in Christ (i.e., you don't have to believe exactly like we do in order to be saved, and that all churches and denominations ought to work together).  We have a congregational polity, meaning each church owns its own property and each congregation chooses its own minister(s), but we also have higher-level organizations that can suggest things to the individual congregations, but not force anything.  It makes for a very open and accepting (generally) body, though there can be widely differing aspects of worship services and teaching (there's even a neo-Sufist Disciples congregation in Washington state--if it weren't so far I'd like to go participate in their services).  When it comes down to it, Disciples churches expect their members to read the Bible for themselves, and draw their own conclusions; we (generally) won't tell you what you MUST believe (some members may, but the church doesn't).  Oh, and on that, we have an open communion; we serve communion (Eucharist for the more traditional) every Sunday, and all who believe in Christ as the Savior are welcome to partake; no tests or creeds or what have you are required.  And that's my standpoint on all that.

So, here goes:

First off, let me say that I object to the author's insistence of treating all Christians as if they were all alike.  Furthermore, we don't all fit into neat little categories of 'conservative', 'moderate', 'liberal', 'enlightened', 'progressive', or what have you--in many ways, it's like a lot of people's political views.

In his introduction, the author points out that since publication of his earlier work (The End of Faith),
he's found that of the thousands who've written to tell him how wrong he was, the most hostile have come from Christians; "The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism", he writes.  Well, I can certainly understand his point of view; there are many Christians who are intolerant of those who do not share their beliefs.  In response I can only say that we're not all like that (and that phrase, Not All Like That, has in itself become a rallying cry among some Christians who support LGBT equality, which in and of itself is at odds with the mainstream perception of Christianity in America.)

The author seems to seek to wall off Christians, to define them as narrowly as possible, and in what to me is an unfair manner.  He equates those who believe in intelligent design with those who believe in a strict creationist interpretation of the first parts of Genesis.  In fact, it has always seemed to me that intelligent design is an attempt to distance believers 'in good faith' from a literal word-for-word inerrant interpretation of the creation story as described in Genesis. 

The more one studies Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 11 (up until the start of the story of Abraham), and gets further in depth and studies them critically, the one more can begin to see that what these are, are stories the ancient Hebrews told each other around a campfire for many generations, until someone picked up a quill and some papyrus and wrote them down.  For example, the name 'Adam' means, simply, 'man'; it's just an ordinary word.  It's as if I had named my son, 'Boy', instead of William.

However, does that negate the entire Bible?  I do not believe so, which admittedly puts me at odds with a considerable number of Christians (who are also considerably vocal about those beliefs, sometimes to the point of vitriolically denouncing those who do not agree that the entire Bible must be inerrant).

And furthermore, it is in no way an acceptance, or at least a wholesale acceptance, of evolution.  Intelligent design points out that the possibilities of so many very, very long odds occurrences all coming together to create everything in the universe strains credulity beyond its breaking point.  For example, take the design of your eye.  A collection of very specialized cells that accept and convert incoming light, of various wavelengths but only a very small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum, into electrical impulses which are then re-sorted and resolved into an image inside the brain.  And let us not forget that the various cat species, cephalopods (squids and octopi), insects, and arachnids all have eyes that are different from our own.  How could such an incredible collection of diverse cells all randomly occur and group together in the right place, even given billions of years in which to do so?

Or another example--spiders.  What sort of random mutation resulted in some sort of new gland that secreted some strange new fluid, not in any way a waste product, that when dry would have higher mechanical properties than high-strength steel and also be sticky enough to entrap the spider's prey?  Has any scientist ever observed a random mutation in any species, anywhere, that added some entirely new gland?  Spiderman is a comic book character, nothing more.

We do have evolution; witness the rise of MRSA and other anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria.  The bacteria are adapting to something new in their environment.  It's that evolution could not possibly be responsible for all of the incredible diversity of life on this planet--at least not without some sort of intelligent designer behind it in some as-yet-unknown way.

Moving on, the author continues with several statistics, among which are that 44% of Americans believe in the Second Coming of Christ, and that will occur within the next 50 years.  I've not verified the accuracy of this (personally, I'd not shed a tear if the Second Coming were tomorrow--I think we've made a perfect mess of the infinitesimal portion of the entire Creation, enough to prove that we are not competent to be stewards of what we've been entrusted with).  But then the author tries to say that these 44% of Americans would "see a silver lining" if New York City were vaporized, based on his Second Coming statistic, presumably because this could be a herald of that Second Coming.  This then supposes a complete and willful disregard for the suffering of our fellow humans (not to mention the Christians in New York City) in favor of some catastrophe that's clearly not what has been foretold as to the events of the Second Coming.

"You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death."  Granted.  This is fundamental to Christianity.  "We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe that all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so."  Well, many of us do make sort of an exception for Jews, as God's chosen people, even if they do reject the Messiah, due to the promises God made Abraham.  But other than that . . . yes, that's correct.  We may seek common ground, peace and understanding with those of other faiths, but when you come down to it, there is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other faiths.  One can be very blunt to the point of being uncharitable and say that all the rest are wrong and that their believers are condemning themselves to eternal damnation, but most of us chose not to word things so strongly--it can get in the way of evangelism, which demands an open mind as a starting point.

The author next brings up 'religious liberals' or 'religious moderates':  "There are Christians who consider other faiths to be equally valid paths to salvation."  Yes, I've heard of this, and have even heard it taught in Disciples churches, but it is wrong.  Even a passing familiarity with the Gospels confirms this.  John 3:16 is probably the most well-known verse in the Bible, at least in the English-speaking world; "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever shall believeth in Him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life."  If there were other paths to salvation, then Christ's sacrifice on the cross was unnecessary, as those 'other paths' would fit the bill.  If those other paths did lead to salvation, Christ, as the Son of God, would not have needed to come to earth in human form.  But Christ did come to earth, and did die on the cross as the Son of God.  Those other paths, other religions, do not lead to salvation; therefore, Christ's sacrifice was necessary in order to re-unite humanity with God.

"Either the Bible is just an ordinary book, written by mortals, or it isn't.  Either Christ was divine, or He was not.  If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordinary man, the basic doctrine of Christianity is false . . . the history of Christian theology is the story of bookish men parsing a collective delusion."  The author here, in his mind, is setting up his argument--that both conditions must be met:  the Bible must be of divine origin, from cover to cover, the literal Word of God, AND Christ must also be divine; in his reasoning one cannot be true by itself.

AND that God's Word must be inerrant, totally beyond reproach in every aspect.  Otherwise the game's over, then and there.

This is an easy argument to 'win', provided both sides agree to this dual requirement (Inerrant Bible/Divine Christ).  And the Bible has a number of noted errors, only some of which the author touches on.  The one I remember most is an error in the listing of the kings of Israel and Judah, in 1st and 2nd Kings, and in 1st and 2nd Chronicles (the two sets cover roughly the same time period in Jewish history).  Another that the author points out is in Matthew 27:9-10, where the apostle talks about the death and burial of Judas Iscariot; it incorrectly points out the origin of the prophecy as in Jeremiah, when in fact it's Zechariah 11:12-13.  The author also goes on to mention errors in mathematics, such as a very poor, inaccurate valuation for pi, in 1 Kings 7:23-26, though this is (as is all too frequently found in the Bible) open to interpretation.

Well, so much for inerrancy, and if you buy into how Harris has chosen to define success, it's all over.

But do those errors change the fundamental nature of what the Bible is?  Not in the slightest.

So what is the Bible?  Well, there's literal definitions, about its having 66 books, written in three languages, on three different continents, and so on and so forth.  I think a better definition is that it is the account of God's actions in the world and His purpose in all creation, at least for Christians; it is all about the fall and the redemption of all mankind.  Does that mean that this account must be completely and utterly true in every aspect?  I do not think so.  It was written by humans, who despite their best efforts are prone to errors.  (For a book that is held to have a completely divine origin for its text, see the Koran or the Book of Mormon.)  Does it need to be completely accurate and trustworthy as to His purpose with the entire creation?  Yes, I think it does, and it is, and that these are two entirely separate requirements.   (This then begs the question:  What is God's purpose with all creation?  But this is a question for another time.)

So we are left, then, with the divine (or not) nature of Christ as the heart of the matter.
 

Updates . . .

OK, OK, I haven't had anything to post in a while.  But it's not as if I had some major following anyway.

It's been over a year (nearly a year and a half) since the last time I posted anything here.  Mostly I've been throwing things out on Facebook, but that's a sort of limited space (there IS a maximum size to posts on Facebook, something like 5,000 or 10,000 characters, which I've run into once or twice).  Here I can be more open and ramble on to my heart's content.

So . . . do I have anything to say?  Well, of course!

For some time now, I've been working with my church, and beyond my church's four walls as well.  And that's something I'll end up posting about.

My son has decided to renounce Christianity . . . and that's another huge topic, too.

Beyond that, there's the never-ending supply of fodder that the government (mostly federal, but also state and some local, too) spews forth, things like the shutdown, sequestration, Obamacare, support for the military, etc.

So I guess I'll get started.

Lt. (j.g.) Joseph H. Patterson, USN

While attending a performance at the Classen School of Advanced Studies (which included one of my son's friends), I noticed that there was a plaque on the wall, across from the main entrance, partially covered with posters advertising the school's yearbook and another proclaiming how much they love their Lady Comets.

Gently lifting back the tape stuck to this plaque, I found it was a memorial to Lt. Joseph Hester Patterson, US Naval Academy Class of 1936, and Classen High School Class of 1930, who was lost in the wreck of the USS Squalus in May 1939.

Ensign (later Lt. (j.g)) Joseph H. Patterson, USN

Now, anyone who knows much of anything about submarines will recognize the name USS Squalus.  At the time it was the newest submarine in the fleet, with all the latest improvements and newest technology of the day.  However, it sank off the coast of Portsmouth, NH, on a routine dive.  26 of the 59 aboard her were lost; the remaining 33 were saved in one of the more amazing feats of undersea rescue ever attempted.

USS Squalus, in happier times

(As for me, I've always been intrigued by submarines.  I can't say why that is, but, back in 1987, had the Navy had college benefits to match the Army, there's a very good chance I would have become a submariner rather than a tank crewman.  I've read quite a bit of the history of US submarines in WWII, and toured the USS Batfish (located here in Oklahoma, near Muskogee) and the USS Drum (in Mobile Bay, AL) and it was fascinating to see the same areas I'd read so much of on other submarines of the same classes.)

Submarines of that era were diesel-electric, meaning that they were powered by diesel engines while on the surface, and by electric motors, powered by batteries, while submerged.  The boats [submarines are always referred to as 'boats' rather than 'ships'--don't ask me why] were optimized to run on the surface, which accounts for the slow submerged speeds typical of that time.  Battery life was limited, and submarines would have to periodically surface to recharge the batteries and refill the compressed air tanks that made it possible for them to resurface.

I've done some searching on the internet, and found quite a bit of information on the Squalus and her sinking.  For unknown reasons, after the submarine had begun her 18th dive, when all aboard was in normal condition, all safety procedures followed and cross-checked, and was already partially submerged with no indication of any problems, one of the main induction valves, which supplied air to the big diesels, opened, and water poured into the aft sections of the boat, causing immediate flooding.  A partial watertight condtion had already been set (which I imagine was part of their standard procedures) which limited the flooding to the aft areas, including both engine rooms, the crew berthing areas, the aft torpedo room, and the battery spaces.

The surviving crewmembers were able to deploy an emergency buoy, and were also able to fire off marker rockets, which led to the Squalus' sister ship, the USS Sculpin, to locate the Squalus about 4 hours later.  The Navy immediately launched rescue efforts, which pioneered a number of new diving methods (including the first operational use of heliox, the mixture of helium and oxygen still used for extremely deep dives).  After 33 hours on the bottom, the last man off the Squalus, the skipper Lt. Oliver Naquin, reached the surface.  (The rescue efforts were headed by then-Lt. Cdr. Charles 'Swede' Momsen, inventor of the Momsen Lung, a rescue device to allow submariners to escape from stricken submarines below the surface, and whose exploits throughout his career are part of US Navy legend.  BTW, his first duty station was aboard USS Oklahoma.)

[Here's a link to an excellent US Navy site about the Squalus and the rescue efforts.  And here's one with the official statement of Lt. W.T. Doyle, a survivor of the sinking of the Squalus, which details all the procedures used in the dive.]

Lt. (j.g.) Joseph H. Patterson is buried at Arlington National Cemetery, in Section 9, Site 5969

The Squalus itself was recovered from the bottom (the bodies of the crewmen who lost their lives were not recovered until then) as a full investigation required the examination of the submarine.  As there were similar submarines already in service, and more being built, if there might be a flaw in the design it was critical to find it and correct it.  None was ever found, but as the suggestion was made that a crewman may have inadvertently opened the induction valve, confusing its control with the control for a different valve nearby.  Subsequent redesign of the controls made it practically impossible to confuse the two, even in complete darkness, by changing the shape of the controls.  (Incidentally, this same approach is used in aircraft cockpits to this day, to eliminate any possible confusion between, say, a landing gear handle with a flap control lever.)

As for the Squalus, it was repaired and recommissioned as the USS Sailfish.  USS Sailfish served in the US Pacific Fleet throughout WWII, sinking or damaging 20 Japanese vessels totalling nearly 84,000 tons.  She and her crew also earned 9 battle stars and a Presidential Unit Citation during the war. She was decommissioned in November 1945, and sold for scrap.  However, her sail and conning tower (that section you typically see people standing on, with the periscopes sticking up, when a submarine is on the surface) was removed and put on display at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, as a memorial to the 26 men who lost their lives aboard the Squalus, and to all their fellow submariners who have died in the line of duty.

The USS Squalus Memorial at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

The memorial in Portsmouth, another at the gravesite of another crewman aboard Squalus, Torpedoman's Mate 1st Class Robert Gibbs, a model of the Squalus created by a long-time dock worker at the Portsmouth Naval Yard, which now resides in the Tuck Memorial Museum, and the plaque at Classen SAS are the only memorials (other than some fine websites) that I have found.

Now, I cannot know why the Classen High Class of 1950 chose to have a plaque made and installed for a classmate who graduated from their school two years before they were born.  The plaque states that he was a hero in death as much as he was a friend in life.  And I cannot dispute the fact that, for whatever reason, the Class of 1950 felt strongly enough to honor Lt. Patterson in such a manner.  That reason must have been sufficient in their eyes to pass on the legacy of Joseph Patterson to future students in perpetuity; that his life, and the manner of his death, should be something worthy to inspire and motivate future graduates of that fine institution.

But here today, almost 73 years after his death, his plaque is covered by mundane posters, obscuring its message.  To be honest, the plaque is in need of cleaning; some sort of pink residue besmirches the lower parts of the plaque, and there's other accumulated dust and grime in the depths of the lettering.

In a larger sense, is this the ultimate fate of all memorials?  I doubt one student in a thousand there at Classen SAS can tell you the story of Lt. Patterson as well as I have above; at best they might remember him as 'that guy whose name is on that thing at the front of the school'.  But how many years will it take before the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial is held in so little regard?  We Oklahomans have, to me, an enraging tendency to disregard our history, tearing down memorials to make way for more 'useful'--meaning commercial--purposes.  Or, as in this case, we simply have so little respect for them that we cover them up and pretend they're not even there.

And so, given the way things are, how long before the Bombing Memorial falls into disrepair and we fill it in for a more 'appropriate' commercial purpose?  Perhaps some new business tower, or more parking?  How long before our descendants purposefully forget about us, and what happened to us, and the reasons why we felt it important to memorialize the things we have created, built, and installed to remind us--and them--of who we are, and who we were?

On a practical standpoint, perhaps not every one and everything deserves to be memorialized; if all memorials were maintained indefinitely, eventually the landscape would be littered with memorials everywhere, some stacked on top of others.  Perhaps we need to be very careful about who and what we memorialize.  But we also need to respect the judgment of those who have gone before in who and what they chose to memorialize, and to keep those memorials well-maintained and presentable.  To do otherwise demeans us as a people.

Warriors of the Cold War

Ran across a story this morning, the day after Christmas, from Danbury, Connecticut. It's about a mysterious building, fairly large (270,000 sq ft) with no windows except in its cafeteria, where a large portion of the town's population worked. Everything that happened within was classified until very recently.

This building was where the KH-9 spy satellite's cameras, optics, and film handling systems were built. For many years during the Cold War, the KH-9 was one of America's premier spy satellites. Unlike later satellites, the KH-9s used film, and would load that film into special canisters that would then re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, and would be caught, dangling from a parachute, by a specially-equipped C-130 as it floated down in mid-air.

So finally all the former workers there could finally tell their families what it was they did, the reason for all the long hours over the years, the missed ball games or birthday parties. Their work was vital to the defense of the United States and our allies.

While it may take a completely different type of courage and dedication to serve a tour (or multiple tours) in Vietnam, Iraq, of Afghanistan, still these folks displayed their own type of courage and dedication. Yeah, they never got shot at. Yeah, they got to go home to their wives and kids at the end of the day, eat real food, take showers, sleep in a real bed. But to have the dedication and tenacity necessary to preserve national security takes more than what a lot of people are capable of. And make no mistake; the Soviets were our enemy. Where do you think all the ammo, rockets, missiles, and other ordinance fired at Americans in Vietnam came from? Time may dull the perception, but it was nevertheless the truth at the time. And regardless of what others may say, these men and women who worked here and kept the secrets here lived lives of true significance and service to our nation and free people everywhere.

But it's also interesting to note in the comments to the article the number of people insisting how the Cold War was all a big waste of money, that it was all useless, just a big propaganda ploy.

I suppose if one needed an example of how badly history education in our public schools has sank, here then is a perfect example.

I too was a cold warrior; I served in the Army in one of the 'border cavalry' units in Germany back in the olden days, patrolling the East German border. And I was there for the fall of the Berlin Wall; the most momentous historical event I have ever been a part of (admittedly a nearly infinitesimal part, but a part nonetheless). I have seen the other side; I have heard the stories firsthand of what things were like over there. And me and my fellow soldiers were prepared to use deadly force, under our rules of engagement, to protect West German citizens if the need ever arose (it didn't). But we still manned the observation posts, walked the border trails, called in our sitreps, and gave up time with our families in order to serve the greater good.

And what do you think would have happened if the United States had chosen not to 'fight' the Cold War? What if we just went back to our pre-WWII isolationism and abandoned Europe and East Asia to whatever fate would befall them, with an expansionist Soviet Union--led by Stalin no less!!--looking to gobble up still more land and subjects? England would still have ol' Winston Churchill there to glower at them and keep his people motivated; probably Great Britain would have withstood the Soviets. But all the rest of Europe probably would have fallen under Soviet domination. What if the United States had not led the United Nations in opposition to the invasion of South Korea? Japan, for its part, had been so devastated by American conventional and fire bombing--far outside the areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--that it could put up no real resistance to the Soviet T-34 tanks that would have been landed on Japanese beaches and rolling down from the north.

No one would have had the ability to deal with a minor distraction like the creation of a Jewish state . . . far too many major issues to allow something like that, in 1947. And even if it had been founded, how long would Israel have lasted without massive military assistance from Europe and America? Not much past 1956, that's for sure. And who thinks that the Arabs would have been merciful to the Israelis after they'd defeated them?

There would have been no France to even attempt to stop the Viet Minh; no Battle of Dien Bien Phu; the North Vietnamese would simply have been able to proceed with the invasion and take-over of Laos unimpeded. And so there would be no American involvement in Vietnam.

The nationalist Chinese would have had no hope. Even if they did make it to Taiwan, who would have been there to help defend them?

Soviet/communist expansion would have been unchecked in Africa and in Latin America as well.

And no one would have ever gone into space, much less to the moon.

True, we would have had LOTS OF MONEY!! Untold trillions that had been spent on defense and the CIA over those decades! And really, doesn't that really represent what America is all about? We're all about the MONEY! (Witness the bailouts of corporations 'too big to fail' while the ranks of the American homeless grows by leaps and bounds, and tens of millions of Americans fall into poverty--but it's all THEIR fault!! They just need to work harder--just listen to Herman Cain! But I digress.)

And we wouldn't have lost all those American lives in Korea and in Vietnam, and elsewhere throughout the rest of the Cold War. And there's nothing over there that's worth a single American life . . .

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."

This was once one of our highest ideals, our highest beliefs, that we are all created equal. Therefore, how can we, if we truly believe this to be true, value an American life more than, say, a Somali life? Or a French life, or a Japanese life? If we are all equal, then we all have equal value.

And then other truths kick in. "An injustice to one is an injustice to all", according to Martin Luther King. "Silence before an injustice is yet another injustice", according to Ghandi. If we are to be true to the ideals handed down to us from our ancestors, from the founders of this great nation, then these impose certain responsibilities upon us, certain duties that we must fulfill. And among those, in the words of yet another great American, is the duty to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to ensure the survival and success of liberty."

Therefore we HAD to hold the line against the Soviets. We HAD to aid our allies, including our erstwhile enemies, West Germany and Japan. We HAD to stop the North Koreans and the Chinese in Korea. We HAD to try to hold back the North Vietnamese, even though we were ultimately unsuccessful (though we won every battle of the war, our politicians still lost the war, due in large part because our enemies understood something we did not, and attacked not just our forces in the field but the American political 'center of mass' here at home, and, to a sufficiently-large degree, twisted American public opinion against the war--but again I digress).

We HAD to have the Reagan-era military buildup, because there was a vulnerability with the Soviets. We engaged in the biggest peacetime military buildup, daring the Soviets to keep pace. But at home the Soviet people were weary of sacrificing everything for security; they wanted a little something for themselves, some sort of improvement in their lives. The Soviets tried to supply both, but could not, Eventually the 'whole rotten edifice' came crumbling down, not with a bang but with a whimper, in a nearly bloodless ending that no one could have conceived even 2 years before.

Which in turn meant an end to nearly 50 years of 'Mutually Assured Destruction', of the world merrily going about its business only 30 minutes away from the potential end of life on earth. That's how we lived, young 'uns. Didn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's how geopolitical conflicts between nations and ideologies intruded into all human life, even in a small town in east central Oklahoma on the shores of our biggest lake.

But that's all gone now. If the 'Greatest Generation', the generation who grew up in the Great Depression, and went on to win The War (WWII), and build America in to the world's biggest and truest superpower, then this is what my generation was able to do--remove the spectre of worldwide nuclear annihilation from all our lives, and also to bring freedom, not always clean and tidy, but frequently messy and sometimes painful, to untold millions around the world. And we did it in the same way as our forefathers did since The War--holding the line, guarding the Frontiers of Freedom, in the Cold War. And in our ranks I will most emphatically include those workers who built spy satellites in Danbury, Connecticut.

Lee Roy Selmon

It is only appropriate that my blog, related to Eufaula, OK in a very loose way, should note the passing of Eufaula's most famous son, Lee Roy Selmon.

Universally recognized as an extraordinary human being as well as a truly legendary football player, Lee Roy Selmon passed away yesterday, Sept. 4, 2011, as a result of a massive stroke he experienced on the preceding Friday.

Few football players have been as honored in life as Lee Roy Selmon, and few are as held in high regard in the memories of his teammates, coaches, opponents, and fans as he. To have helped the Sooners win back-to-back national championships, started off as the first-round draft pick of the then-new 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, which then promptly went 0-14 that season, but then worked with his teammates to turn things around so that just three years later they played in the NFC championship game, to have his career cut short by a back injury, but then to continue to live with the same humility and yet such drive as he showed during his playing career shows the true nature of who Lee Roy Selmon was. The Lombardi Trophy. the Outland Trophy. National Football Foundation Scholar/Athlete. Two time All-American. Inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. NFL Defensive Player of the Year. 6-time Pro Bowler. Inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

What people have had to say about him has been amazing. "It has been a life's pleasure to know Lee Roy Selmon for 33 years," said Tom Edrington, of the Tampa Tribune. Barry Switzer called Lee Roy "the best player I ever coached."

Gary Shelton, in the St. Petersburg Times, perhaps said it best:

"The measure of a man is not in the games he plays. The measure of a man is not in the money he makes. It is not whether he has an expressway named after him, or a restaurant, or if his name is in the Bucs' Ring of Honor. It is not a bust in the Hall of Fame, or a statue that may be built on his college campus, or in the memories of a thousand black and white photographs from his playing days.

"In the case of Selmon, the measure of him and his meaning should be measured by the shadow he has cast. By the lives touched. By the grace shown . . .

"In sports, in life, there are a lot of a good, decent people. There are caring athletes, and charitable athletes, and socially aware athletes. But there has never been an athlete whose basic decency has come easier to him.

"Selmon [w]as never been a man who had to work at being a good guy. There are a great many athletes who work at being a good guy, who want the world to know they are being a good guy, who border on playing a role of a good guy. Not Lee Roy. Lee Roy [was] just being Lee Roy."

And so it is dismaying to find that the city of Eufaula, which for many years had a billboard on US 69, on the north end of town, near the hill where the hospital is located, billing Eufaula as "The Home of The Selmon Brothers", no longer lays claim to Lee Roy and his brothers, at least in a public forum. In a state that has such a huge emphasis on athletics and in football in particular, and in such a small town (only 3,500 or so) that has produced 4 spectacular players (Lee Roy Selmon, his brothers Lucious and Dewey, and J.C. Watts), to not recognize them is unconscionable. I would gladly contribute to an impressive bronze statue of the four of them, in their Eufaula Ironheads uniforms (yeah, they're the Ironheads; I never heard why that particular name was selected for the high school's teams), perhaps there off of Highway 9 on the south end of town, near the high school. And there's plenty of empty storefront spaces there in town for a small museum, too.

It was in Eufaula, or more precisely just outside of town, where Lee Roy and his brothers grew up, where they learned the values and developed the character, not to mention the strengths and skills, that would so set them apart from the others who took the field with them, and later on in life. (Lee Roy was also a member of the National Honor Society while in high school there.) Eufaula should claim at least a little bit of pride of having been where these men grew up, who went on to such greatness and universal acclaim. And it is altogether fitting and proper that the town should honor their memory: such things should not be the exclusive purview of the Sooners and the "Gaylord Family/Oklahoma Memorial Stadium", it should be, first and foremost, in their own hometown.

Universal Health Care . . .

The Chineese news agency Xinhua reports that on Aug. 30, a 24-year-old American man in Cincinnati died due to an untreated infection from a toothache, leaving behind a 6-year-old daughter.

The man, named Kyle Willis, started experiencing pain in a wisdom tooth two weeks before. A dentist recommended that he have it removed. However, because he had no job and no insurance, and no money to cover the procedure out-of-pocket, Mr. Willis declined.

"Subsequently, the tooth infection spread to his brain, causing a headache. So he went to an emergency room, where he got prescriptions for antibiotics and pain medications, and he chose the latter because he could not afford the antibiotics," the article states.

Apparently the antibiotics cost $27, while the pain meds cost just $3. Eventually, Mr. Willis died of the infection.

Back in February 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver also died of complications from an untreated toothache. A routine $80 tooth extraction could have saved his life, but his uninsured mother, who was covered by Medicaid, could not find a dentist that would accept Medicaid coverage. Instead, as the infection progressed, young Mr. Driver required much more advanced medical care, including 2 surgeries and 6 weeks in a hospital, again covered by Medicaid, that cost more than $250,000 (meaning taxpayers paid for this) but was in the end unsuccessful in saving the young man's life.

Here's a picture of Deamonte with his mom, after brain surgery that was done to try to stem the infection.

Now of course with the story of Kyle Willis being reported by a Chineese news agency, they have a political axe to grind, specifically for their domestic audience; the tired old gambit of making oneself look better by portraying someone else (the United States, in this instance) in the worst light possible. They're still upset about having funded America's addiction to credit, I think, which of course points straight back to themselves, but that's another issue, for another time.

Anyway, the whole concept of universal, 'single-payer' health care here in the United States is pretty much dead. Certainly here in rabidly Republican Oklahoma, 'Obamacare' is universally and vitriolically scorned; if one were to use the actual name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 with the average Oklahoman, no one would know what in the hell you were talking about. Anyone who had either the audacity or the stupidity of even suggesting universal health care runs the risk of being tarred and feathered and being ridden out of town on a rail (well, almost). (The same folks tend to insist there's no such thing as global warming, despite the fact that we Oklahomans are just wrapping up the hottest summer ever, with 61 days over 100 degrees; the previous record was just 50 days over 100, but THAT'S yet another subject.)

But . . . the question still remains. Why should we continue with things the way they are? I know I cannot afford to use the health insurance I have (GEHA, through my employer; their arcane rules for what they'll pay, to whom, and when, and what for, have left me to use this only in dire emergencies), plus I have no dental or vision coverage, because I cannot afford it. The best I can do, and hope to be able to do someday, is to pay for an eye exam so I can take the lens prescription to work and get the government-provided safety glasses they offer because of the hazards of my job, so I can get new glasses (even if they come with the decidedly unattractive side safety shields) as my current glasses, which are a little over 10 years old, are nearly falling apart. BTW, I'm diabetic too, and have never had a diabetic eye exam, and yes, I've been experiencing some of the symptoms of diabetic retinopathy: blurred vision that gets better when my blood sugar is low. And on the topic of diabetes, GEHA also refuses to pay for diabetic testing supplies . . . the apparent reasoning being that if they don't pay for preventive care and the disease runs it's course, to blindness and/or amputation, then I'll lose my job and my health care coverage with them, so they're not going to have to pay for the aftermath--Medicare will--so why should they pay for preventive care? It may be barbaric and inhuman, but if your only concern is corporate profits, it is logical.

Anyway, enough about my problems and back to the subject. Our politicians and their corporate sponsors/masters have successfully convinced enough of the American population evils of 'socialized medicine' that the Big Insurance, Big Medicine, and Big Pharma feeding trough will never be empty. 'Socialized medicine', as they like to call it, represents an enormous threat to their profits and dividends, so they (the Big Triumvirate--Insurance, Medicine, and Pharma) have made sure it will never be enacted here in the United States.

(Here's an idea for political reform: make all politicians wear NASCAR-style uniforms, with patches all over them, so we'd all be able to see who their sponsors are . . . )

But here is a PARTIAL list (though as complete as I have been able to assemble) of countries that have universal health care in one form or another:

Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greenland, Greece, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Iran, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Monaco, Moldova, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vatican City, and Venezuela.

Egypt? Yes, even Hosni Mubarak provided health care for his people, along with the secret police. Iran? Yes, the ayatollahs want their people healty, probably so they won't be hacking and coughing while chanting, 'DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN!". Libya? Yes, even ol' Gadafi provided health care, and presumably the rebel NTC government will keep it. Mexico? Yep, even with all their other problems they provide health care for their people; in fact, their constitution requires it. North Korea? Yes, Kim Jong-Il needs all the followers he can get. Pakistan? Yes, and that means that Osama bin Laden had health care provided for him by the Pakistani government; makes you wonder how many of his victims didn't have any coverage, and how many rescuers who tried to save them who are now suffering due to their efforts don't have access to adequate health care. Russia? Yes, like Mexico, it's in their constitution; they have to. Syria? Yes, rounding out our group of tyrannical dictators is Bashir Al-Asad, who at least cares enough to provide health care coverage for his people while his army machine-guns anyone who dares to speak out against him.

That's 101 nations, representing 4 billion, 867 million, 366 thousand, 896 people, according to the latest data available. (Data from Wikipedia and the CIA World Fact Book.) The total world population is expected to hit 7 billion in October 2011, so this list represents 69.53% of the world's population.

One big caveat here, of course: this does not reflect anything at all as to the QUALITY of health care--just that the governments of these countries care enough to provide at least a minimal level of health care to their populations. Of couse, while some of these are near the bottom of quality in terms of health care, this list also includes recognized world leaders in terms of health care.

[WARNING: High cynicism levels to follow] So . . . to follow the propaganda here in the good ol' US of A, 69.53% of the world is suffering under the horrors of 'socialized medicine', of universal health care. Makes you wonder when we're going to launch another war of liberation, this time to free the suffering peoples of the world from their government-provided health care systems. You know, the economy is cratering, and wars have always been good for the economy . . . What if we said that their medical systems are just a cover for WMD?

Screwing the Military . . .

This just in: DoD Panel Calls for Radical Retirement Overhaul!

Oh, this is a beaut! Essentially, the DoD, in an effort to reduce costs associated with retiree pay in years to come, recommends that Congress do away with the traditional military retirement program. Essentially, the way the current system works is that it's a defined benefit program; after 20 years military service, a person can retire and receive 40% of their base pay over the highest-paid three-year period. After 30 years service, it increases up to 60%. (Back in the olden days, it was even better, with the percentages at 50% and 75%, respectively, but that was way, way back.)

And the recommended plan is to eliminate that altogether, and replace it with a plan very similar to a 401(k) program, like most civilians have.

So . . . what's wrong with that?

How many civilian jobs, besides fire and police, include the possibility that workers may have to give their lives for their employer? How many civilian jobs require that you give up a number of rights we civilians enjoy? How many civilian jobs can send you halfway around the world, to extremely austere conditions, where there are people who are actively trying to kill you, AND keep your family in the dark about what's going on? Yeah, there's some cushy military jobs; always has been and always will be. But there's plenty of hard-core military jobs that have absolutely no civilian equivalent--infantry, armor, artillery; submarines; landing in a hot LZ or assaulting an enemy-held beach. And you can't ignore the flyboys, either; how many jobs can require you to strap yourself into a small cramped compartment, fly 18 hours

into a combat zone, bomb targets while evading SAMs and triple-A fire, and then fly 18 more hours back home?

Have we come so far away from the major sacrifices the military has made in the past that we have forgotten? More than 1.2 million Americans have died in battle since the Declaration was signed. How many other professions have had to sacrifice so much to ensure our freedoms? Yeah, we've lost nearly 5,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; but we lost over 58,000 in Vietnam, and more than 400,000 in the European and Pacific Theaters in WWII; more than 620,000 died in the Civil War to bring an end to slavery in the United States--which was more than 2% of the population of the entire nation at the time.

I remember hearing a story from a nurse, back in WWII, who landed on Omaha Beach on June 8, 1944, two days after D-Day. She was from Georgia, and saw the beach as the boat carried her and her fellow nurses to the shore. "Oh, that looks like good old Georgia clay," she exclaimed, seeing the reddish cast just beyond the waves. A colonel standing nearby told her, "Honey, that's not clay. That's blood soaked into the sand."

Is it really appropriate then to cut the admittedly generous retirement plans offered to those who have held the line, manned their posts, and kept the War on Terror away from country, away from our homes? They serve day in and day out, ready to be the ones who may have to pay any price, bear any burden, to protect our country and our way of life. Their line of work is far more demanding than ours, any of ours, and that retirement plan is one of the things that they deserve--even if it is expensive. They have earned it.