First this: from October 17, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
something to check out
Maybe a blog should be more personal but it can also be used to help others find good information. I found two things lately that may be of interest for a variety of reasons:
First this: from October 17, 2007
First this: from October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Bittersweet
I have no idea why but I’ve always like bittersweet; the plant that has the bright red berries. I think this was the first flower-type of thing I ever gave my bride-to-be many, many years ago.The picture here is also bittersweet. This is my eldest daughter’s hand. Embraced of course by that of her now fiance’s hand while showing off the shiny thing around the ring finger of her left hand.
I’ve got some time to come to grips with this – the idea of a daughter moving possibly far, far away. I’m happy for her – she deserves this and has waited patiently for it.
Daughter and fiancé are now planning the wedding, which should take place sometime
next year.
A big "what if?"
I’m sort of reading a book called “Savage Peace” which is about he year 1919 and how our country was changing after WWI. There’s a lot in this book and this is not a review or summary. But the book got me thinking about something.
Bear with me – some of the questions might seems absurd or profane or just downright obnoxious to even ask, but for the sake of an odd argument I will ask them.
What if the United States had never entered WWI – on anybody’s side? What if we remained neutral?
It is important to note that we did not jump into this war and unlike WWII some decades later, we were not attacked and forced into it. President Wilson did a Kerry flip-flop on this one, first being against the war and then later committing troops and materiel to the effort.
The U.S. lost more than 120,000 men in the war. That’s bad.
Had we not entered the war Germany would have likely won the war. I imagine the landscape and mapping of western Europe would be hugely different than it is today. Germany’s borders might be bigger. Who knows how France would look today. But … and this is a big but …
If Germany HAD won the war, would there have been a climate for someone like Adolph Hitler to rise up in its aftermath, when the Germans had been beaten literally and figuratively by the world? Part of his message was one of Aryan pride. If the Germans had been on top, his message might have been lost and he may never have risen to the level of power he took on in later years.
No Hitler- then probably no WWII, no Holocaust. That’s good.
What about Russia? Some people accused Russia of being in cohoots with Germany in WWI when they stopped fighting which allowed Germany to focus its manpower on the western front of the war in Europe.
If the U.S. had not entered, would Germany have added Russia to its list of conquests? If that had happened – would there have been a Bolshevik revolution and the Communism and its world-wide campaign that followed? If not, then that’s good.
If we had not entered into the fight would we have built up our military to be strong enough to stave off a possible invasion or attack by Germany at some future point? That could be bad.
Back to France. If our omission from the war caused France to lose territory, become occupied and whatever else followed – would they have continued their colonial efforts and presence in Indo-China? If not or if they had left sooner, what would have happened in Vietnam?
Back to Russia – if perhaps no Communist revolution, then would Mao have surfaced in 1949 to lead China into its own Communist overhaul?
If none of this, would Japan have decided in 1941 to attack the U.S. anyway?
If this hadn’t happened, would we have helped rebuild them into the modern society they are today rather than remaining somewhat feudal in their government, culture, structure?
To carry the communism thing further, what happens to Cuba? The corrupt Batista regime might still have been overthrown by Castro and Che and company but without Russian support, would they have been communist or just possibly a new government?
I guess you could keep asking these questions on and on. Perhaps historians have addressed this and come up with good answers and reasons why we are better off for having fought in WWI but I’ve not read or heard them.
Bear with me – some of the questions might seems absurd or profane or just downright obnoxious to even ask, but for the sake of an odd argument I will ask them.
What if the United States had never entered WWI – on anybody’s side? What if we remained neutral?
It is important to note that we did not jump into this war and unlike WWII some decades later, we were not attacked and forced into it. President Wilson did a Kerry flip-flop on this one, first being against the war and then later committing troops and materiel to the effort.
The U.S. lost more than 120,000 men in the war. That’s bad.
Had we not entered the war Germany would have likely won the war. I imagine the landscape and mapping of western Europe would be hugely different than it is today. Germany’s borders might be bigger. Who knows how France would look today. But … and this is a big but …
If Germany HAD won the war, would there have been a climate for someone like Adolph Hitler to rise up in its aftermath, when the Germans had been beaten literally and figuratively by the world? Part of his message was one of Aryan pride. If the Germans had been on top, his message might have been lost and he may never have risen to the level of power he took on in later years.
No Hitler- then probably no WWII, no Holocaust. That’s good.
What about Russia? Some people accused Russia of being in cohoots with Germany in WWI when they stopped fighting which allowed Germany to focus its manpower on the western front of the war in Europe.
If the U.S. had not entered, would Germany have added Russia to its list of conquests? If that had happened – would there have been a Bolshevik revolution and the Communism and its world-wide campaign that followed? If not, then that’s good.
If we had not entered into the fight would we have built up our military to be strong enough to stave off a possible invasion or attack by Germany at some future point? That could be bad.
Back to France. If our omission from the war caused France to lose territory, become occupied and whatever else followed – would they have continued their colonial efforts and presence in Indo-China? If not or if they had left sooner, what would have happened in Vietnam?
Back to Russia – if perhaps no Communist revolution, then would Mao have surfaced in 1949 to lead China into its own Communist overhaul?
If none of this, would Japan have decided in 1941 to attack the U.S. anyway?
If this hadn’t happened, would we have helped rebuild them into the modern society they are today rather than remaining somewhat feudal in their government, culture, structure?
To carry the communism thing further, what happens to Cuba? The corrupt Batista regime might still have been overthrown by Castro and Che and company but without Russian support, would they have been communist or just possibly a new government?
I guess you could keep asking these questions on and on. Perhaps historians have addressed this and come up with good answers and reasons why we are better off for having fought in WWI but I’ve not read or heard them.
The music of your life
All of us grow up thinking the music we grew up listening to is the best and we’ll listen to it forever.
And in some cases that is true. An earlier generation grew up on big band, Sinatra etc. and to this day some of that era listen only to this style of music or at least they may think it is the only good music.
Others may have been raised on classical music; the Mozarts, Beethovens etc. and have kept with that throughout their lifetimes.
But what about those of us who spent our formative years listening to the popular music of our day? In my case that would be mostly rock. Now this is a broad genre and almost doesn’t work for my coming hypothesis but bear with me on this one.
I’m pretty eclectic in musical tastes and was in my teens. Everything from the Beach Boys, Beatles, James Taylor, Cream, Santana, Chicago, Doobies, Steely Dan, CSN – OK enough of mine. But also remember how very much music changed in the 60s – from sappy easy listening stuff and Kingston trio folk in the early years through the English invasion to the psychedelic years in the late 60s.
Now somewhat 40 years removed and counting, what am I listening to now? A lot of the above still (isn’t XM Radio great?!) and I’ve added new artists that have come along since then – U2, John Mayer, Coldplay, Diana Krall (which adds jazz to my listening repertoire) but I’ve also added various types of country which include people like Alison Kraus and Nickel Creek.
My point though is most of what I listen to now is at least a spin-off of a style or genre I had been listening to 30 years ago. Not necessarily new.
I’m wandering.
I also listened to do-wop, MoTown, silly one-hit-wonders, the Carpenters (sorry), John Denver – but do I listen to any of that today? No, unless I happen to hit an oldies station and wax nostalgic for a few moments. (OK, John Denver maybe but only when my daughter visits – and I have no idea why she took a liking to John Denver’s music.)
What about the kids of the 90s when grunge came along? Will those people still be listening to Nirvana when they are in their 60s?
What about hip-hop - especially rap? Obviously this is hugely popular but will those kids (both black and white) be listening to this stuff in their 50s or 60s? I doubt it.
Some genres are slightly less generational – country for one, jazz another and of course classical and for those, people probably DO tend to stay with their favorite style although even in country tastes change. Country is certainly different now with the more pop sounds of Rascal Flatts and others compared to earlier country of Johnny Cash or even before him with folks like Conway Twitty, Ernest Tubbs, Hank Williams (yes, the original Hank.) But still country tends to be country.
It is so easy for us to be myopic about our music and to think ours is and always will be the best. But I also think some of our time’s (OK the 60s and 70s – but I don’t include disco!) music is timeless.
I have no idea what I’ll be listening to when I cross that six-decade threshold before too very long but it probably won’t be the harder edged stuff.
And in some cases that is true. An earlier generation grew up on big band, Sinatra etc. and to this day some of that era listen only to this style of music or at least they may think it is the only good music.
Others may have been raised on classical music; the Mozarts, Beethovens etc. and have kept with that throughout their lifetimes.
But what about those of us who spent our formative years listening to the popular music of our day? In my case that would be mostly rock. Now this is a broad genre and almost doesn’t work for my coming hypothesis but bear with me on this one.
I’m pretty eclectic in musical tastes and was in my teens. Everything from the Beach Boys, Beatles, James Taylor, Cream, Santana, Chicago, Doobies, Steely Dan, CSN – OK enough of mine. But also remember how very much music changed in the 60s – from sappy easy listening stuff and Kingston trio folk in the early years through the English invasion to the psychedelic years in the late 60s.
Now somewhat 40 years removed and counting, what am I listening to now? A lot of the above still (isn’t XM Radio great?!) and I’ve added new artists that have come along since then – U2, John Mayer, Coldplay, Diana Krall (which adds jazz to my listening repertoire) but I’ve also added various types of country which include people like Alison Kraus and Nickel Creek.
My point though is most of what I listen to now is at least a spin-off of a style or genre I had been listening to 30 years ago. Not necessarily new.
I’m wandering.
I also listened to do-wop, MoTown, silly one-hit-wonders, the Carpenters (sorry), John Denver – but do I listen to any of that today? No, unless I happen to hit an oldies station and wax nostalgic for a few moments. (OK, John Denver maybe but only when my daughter visits – and I have no idea why she took a liking to John Denver’s music.)
What about the kids of the 90s when grunge came along? Will those people still be listening to Nirvana when they are in their 60s?
What about hip-hop - especially rap? Obviously this is hugely popular but will those kids (both black and white) be listening to this stuff in their 50s or 60s? I doubt it.
Some genres are slightly less generational – country for one, jazz another and of course classical and for those, people probably DO tend to stay with their favorite style although even in country tastes change. Country is certainly different now with the more pop sounds of Rascal Flatts and others compared to earlier country of Johnny Cash or even before him with folks like Conway Twitty, Ernest Tubbs, Hank Williams (yes, the original Hank.) But still country tends to be country.
It is so easy for us to be myopic about our music and to think ours is and always will be the best. But I also think some of our time’s (OK the 60s and 70s – but I don’t include disco!) music is timeless.
I have no idea what I’ll be listening to when I cross that six-decade threshold before too very long but it probably won’t be the harder edged stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
