Cascadia Journal

I stand in astonishment at the arguments that We the People of the United States make over Christmas.  For a holiday that is supposed to be so very joyous, there are so many others that are offended at the very mention of the holiday.  Some of these folks, and you know who they are, will complain about every time this supposed religious holiday is mentioned in a public context.  I think that there are two distinct holidays called Christmas, and I think that the complainers are getting the two confused.

The first Christmas is the Christian holiday.  Having attended a Christian-based elementary school in my youth, I believe I know about this one.  Christmas is the day, and the season, where we celebrate the birth of the Son of the Christian God.  We all know the story, Christian or not.  I think we can all accept the given that Christmas is an important date on the Christian calendar, secondary only to, perhaps, Easter.

Thus, I can also understand the unwillingness of those who have spiritual beliefs based in other religious faiths or those who lean toward the agnostic or atheist do not want to have this Christian holiday forced upon them.  It especially makes perfect sense to me that one without this Christian belief should not have to see their public tax money spent on religious belief, nor have their children forced to endure this tradition in school.  To this point, I can agree that this should not be the case.

This is where the second Christmas comes in.  I look around me and I see quite a few people celebrating a Christmas that does not have any connection (or at best a very tenuous connection) to the birth of the Son of God.  I see a significant number of people celebrating a holiday based upon visiting family and friends, the exchange of gifts, tales of a man and his elves from the North, trees & other pagan symbols, and so on.  This Christmas is a very public and universal holiday, mostly ignores Christian belief, and has very little connection to the Christian holiday of the same name.

In fact, looking at the advertisements around us, it looks like the secular Christmas incorporates a majority of the seven deadly sins.  But I digress.

Despite the fact I don’t want to see the presentation of particular religions in public schools, a general celebration or acknowledgment of Christmas does not bother me.  I don’t think it’s appropriate to teach the benefits of one religion over another in school.  However, the secular Christmas celebration is now an ingrained part of our culture.  To ignore its presence would be to leave out a part of who we are.

The display of a crèche in the public square is likely not the best choice for a public, communal celebration of Christmas.  But let me talk about some of the other symbols of the holiday:

• Santa Claus, the North Pole, elves, reindeer, etc. –  If we look back a couple of hundred years, some of the cultures of northern Europe had a tale of St Nicholas, a Christian figure who is celebrated on December 6, a feast day which once included an exchange of gifts.  There is an indirect link between this figure and Santa Claus.  All of the stuff about magic elves, flying reindeer, polar castles and such are all part of popular secular culture.  No modern church makes a big deal of St Nicholas, nor is any part of the Santa Claus story part of their worship.
• The Christmas Tree.  — A tree was part of the Winter Solstice celebration by pagans and others several hundred years ago, and copied by some followers today.  While I have seen trees in a few churches during the holiday season, they are never a focal point of the worship or services.  The tree is associated with a secular Christmas celebration, I see very little connection between the tree and the Christian Christmas celebration.
• Christmas Carols. — In the history of music, Christmas carols can be categorized as sacred or secular.  Clearly, a song such as “O Come All Ye Faithful” is a call to celebrate a Christian holiday.  Clearly “Jingle Bells” or “White Christmas” is not.  Mt first thought is that these can be easily separated out.  However, from the music education standpoint, I believe it cannot hurt for children to understand both types of music.  To leave out the secular tunes would be to deny the origins of the ancient Christmas holiday, as well as to ignore a major part of cultural and music history.  I believe we can sing “Silent Night” in a school-based setting as a part of music education without making it a part of a religious education.

It is a fact that the vast majority of us celebrate something this time of year, whether it be a religious holiday or a secular holiday, or even just a nod to the Winter Solstice.  I do believe that it is important to not promote one religious belief system over another in our public facilities.  But it is wrong to try to deny that a holiday exists during this time.   School teachers and retail stores alike use themes based on the seasons and holidays to get fresh ideas for projects and events.  There is no sense in outlawing a winter holiday theme, or even a Christmas theme as part of winter-holiday-based presentation.

We really just need to understand the difference between the two Christmases.  One is the Christian holiday.  The other is the secular holiday.  The two can live in harmony and can be celebrated in tandem.  We can celebrate Christmas in a public setting without mandating religion and without denying ourselves a big public Christmas tree.  Perhaps we can live by one of the popular tenets of the holiday and just live together in peace on the issue.

³¹“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

– Mathew 25: 31-46

There are forty Republican Senators in the US Senate.  Without exception, they are opposing any of the healthcare options that have been presented so far.  Most of them have stated that there is no problems within the healthcare system as it stands today.

Yet, an observer would not have to look too far to find quite a few among us who truly do not have access to the healthcare system that they require.  It is obvious to most of us, and it is obvious to these educated and allegedly wise men and women, that the sick among us are not being treated consistently.

As we might remember from the elections last year, many of these Republicans campaigned about the Christian ideals that they stand by.  They said a lot of things that got Christians excited about voting for them.  No problems or quarrels with that.  Like they said, the US is a country founded upon Christian ideals. I’ll take that as a historical given.

So, I am thumbing through the bible on my shelf.  Perhaps I have the wrong version or something, but my copy goes on in many places about the need to heal the sick, and to take care of one’s neighbors, and other such benevolent concepts.  Are these not the ideals that form the basis of Christianity?

Do we choose to look after the needs of all of the sick?  Or only those without pre-existing conditions?  What are we doing for the least of His brothers?

If the Democrats can’t seem to get the necessary sixty votes together to get healthcare for all, perhaps it is time for the Christians to step forward.  All of that spiritual talk you Christian Republicans used on the campaign trail last year:  Was it a spiritual path that you actually live by, or was it just some words you said to get elected?

I’m hoping that the words of Jesus prevail this time.  Who are the sheep and who are the goats among you?

In all of the modern countries of the world, we the inhabitants of those countries can enjoy a variety of public services, paid for by our own tax money.  We all seem to recognize a common need for police and fire protection, as well as crews of paramedics.  For the common good, we educate our children and build programs for higher education and to train people to do jobs and contribute to the community.  We build an infrastructure of roads and bridges, of rails and crossings, and of airports and controllers to allow us to efficiently move ourselves and our freight from place to place.

We do these things as a group, not because we would be unable to do it for ourselves otherwise, but because it is much cheaper and much more efficient to do so as a total group of citizens of our city, region, or country.  We do this for important things. We even do it for smaller projects like community hospitals or libraries, among many other institutions.

Certainly not every single member of the public will directly use these resources.  A particular person may not use a highway, but they benefit from them when a shipper uses that road to get groceries to their local market.  A particular person may not have a child to send to school, but we all benefit by having all of our collective children educated.  But in most every case, we all, directly or indirectly, receive a benefit from the services that we pay for.

We do pay taxes to several levels of government to provide these and other services to us.  Yes, this is our hard-earned money paid out.  It also represents a savings of what we might ahve to pay if we each had to pay for these services individually.  It is with this background that I suggest that the United States should no longer be the only nation in the world not providing healthcare to its citizens.

Currently, our US Senate is working out the details of a bill that will make positive changes to our healthcare system.  It is imperative that they do what is necessary to ensure that healthcare is available for all, at a price that is affordable for all.  For those currently covered by a current medical plan, it will mean cheaper rates.  For those not covered, it will mean the ability to have their basic health needs taken care of.  Even for those who might “never get sick”, it means that there will be an operating healthcare system there if the need did actually arise, much in the same way that we might never have a fire, but we value having a working fire department, should the need arise.  Besides, even if we don’t use the system ourselves, there is an indirect benefit from not allowing those around us to remain ill.

Our Senate is working among themselves to pass a bill that will provide healthcare for all.  There is debate among them as to the best way to accomplish this.  A number of them seem to believe that there is no problem at all.  Certainly, the fact that in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world, we refuse to ensure that all people have access to basic healthcare, is truly a problem that needs to be addressed immediately.

Given the current state of the debate in the senate, I have no expectation that a complete solution will be decided on  this month.  I will hope that the Senate can build a great foundation that will get us started on the path to universal healthcare in the US. It looks like the current proposal is more of a start than a complete plan, but it is a good start.  It will begin to help those who will need it.

The plan will help to lower healthcare costs.  It will make services available to more people who do not have help now.  It will likely cost us some money in taxes.  But when it is fully implemented, we will save much more money in the long run that we now spend on healthcare costs than we will have paid in taxes.

Shame on those Senators who cannot support the continuing health of our citizens.  We will get to the point of having universal healthcare sooner or later.  Sooner would be better for all of us.  However, any progress toward this goal is welcome.  But shame on these Senators for prolonging the suffering for some of us.  The time to act is now.

The holiday shopping season is on all of our minds this time of year.  I don’t have a particularly vast shopping list this year, as it seems right to give priority to the necessities over the luxuries in life.  So my thoughts have turned more to where I don’t shop, rather than where I do shop.

There are a few retailers that don’t want to welcome me, so I will oblige them by not bothering to go to their stores.  There are plenty to choose from, anyway.

My first irritation is retailers who want to charge me an admission fee to visit their stores.  The most well known of these is, of course, Costco.  The famous local non-wholesaler (despite having the word “wholesale” in their name) will not admit me to their store unless I purchase a membership from there.  Many people do, but at least for me, it doesn’t make sense to do so.  Even if it makes sense to purchase a large quantity of items selected from an inventory off items with inconsistent availability, it still doesn’t make sense to me to pay for the privilege of entering the store.  I feel more insulted by this than enticed to see what is inside today.

The same story goes for local company Bi-Mart.  Yes, the membership fee is only $5.00.  It is just the principle of the matter.  Perhaps I’m old fashioned.  Perhaps I want to be welcomed as a shopper, but not with a guard at the door asking whether I’m a member yet.  Frankly, it’s not even particularly clear what they sell inside their windowless stores.  It looks like I won’t be finding out soon, either.

I do not buy my groceries at the Safeway Club.  Historically, I do not have any particular bias against Safeway.  They have fine stores.  I simply find it insulting that they raise their prices much higher than their competitors, then say that they are willing to sell them to me at a “discount” if I use their card.  The discount brings the real sales price down to a more typical price for groceries.  I don’t particularly want to have my shopping tracked.  I also don’t want to be insulted by a company that plays card games instead of offering fair prices.  So I will shop elsewhere.  While I have periodically purchased an item or two from them over the years, I havent bought a cart full of groceries from them since 1998 or so.

Those who know me know that I do my grocery shopping at Fred Meyer.  Astute observers will tell me that Fred Meyer also has a Rewards Card program.  There is a big difference here.  The difference is that I am not required to use the card to get the best available price on groceries.  I am potentially missing out on several dollars worth of coupons in the mail every three months, but I am willing to make that very small sacrifice in exchange for not playing the card game.

In the end, many retailers are trying to lure me into their stores to spend my money.  There are plenty of choices out there without patronizing stores that require me to become a member of a club to shop at their store.  I would encourage my readers to avoid these retailers and others that play games with you rather than offering you free admission to their stores and fair prices to all shoppers.

Some random comments on this new holiday that is quickly becoming more prominent than Christmas itself:

So, we have learned that the day after Thanksgiving in the US is a new holiday known as “Black Friday.”  This is not to be confused with Black Tuesday, the day that the New York Stock Exchange crashed in 1929 to start the Great Depression.  It is also not Good Friday, the Friday before Easter.  No, this Black Friday is the day that the populace is coerced into a frenzy of consumerism under the guise of gift-giving.  Are we really so blind?

>>> First off, Black Friday is so named because of the presumption that this is the day of the year when the company’s books “go into the black” or start to show a cumulative profit for the year.  Perhaps this is true.  However, for anyone out there who knows the basics of accounting, I presume that this assumes that the books are kept on a calendar-year basis.  It seems more reasonable that books are kept on a fiscal-year basis.  To translate for those who don’t know what I just said, if you were keeping track of a company’s books, you might start your year on February 1 1or July 1, so that the after Christmas returns in January are accounted for in the same year as the December sales.  Or, to make it simpler, most big company’s don’t keep the books from the first of January to the end of December. Whatever.

>>> Secondly, and more to the point, what difference does it make to me, the end consumer, that the company is making an annual profit sarting from this particular day?  Why should that make a difference to whether I shop at that store or not?  So, when we are attracted to a “Black Friday” named promotion, we are presumably doing it to celebrate making a profit.  Why should I care?

I might care that businesses, in general, do well enough to remain viable in this economy.  But I really don’t care about the details.

I would be attracted to a store because their merchandise has a fair price.  I would be attracted to a store because the quality of their merchandise is superior.  I fail to understand why anyone responds to a promotion that asks me to be attracted to a store because they expect to make a profit today.

>>> We are supposedly attracted to shopping on this particular day to get started shopping for the vast number of people for which  we might intend to purchase Christmas gifts.  If I am to believe the advertisements I see, we are purchasing a lot of electronics gear for one another.  We are buying cell phones, and other gear that would potentially require the recipient to take on a long-term contract.  Merry Christmas to them!  No, we are really buying things for ourselves.  It’s not bad to buy things for ourselves.  It just seems odd to me that we need an excuse like the upcoming holiday season to get ourselves things.

If you are going to go buy a gift for someone, just do it.  If you want to get yourself something, do that too.  If I ignore that the retailer is asking me to go to their store so that they can make a profit, forgive me for that.  I need a more compelling reason to make me shop there.

Besides, I have read all of those consumer warnings over the years.  They say that if someone tries to sell you a product, and they tell you that you have to buy it right now or the deal will be gone, that there is a good chance that it is a scam.  So, buy that expensive gizmo NOW or it will be gone.  See my point?

Go ahead.  Take advantage of some sales on some stuff.  Just don’t expect me to respond to this insulting promotion that the retailers have going right now.

There are many ways to describe what Cascadia is. It has been described differently by a multitude of people, both as a region and as a way of life. I see it as both — both as a geographic region and as a way of life.  I will take the rest of this page to explain what I mean.

If you look around the Internet, you will find the Cascadia region defined in a number of ways.  One definition is simply Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.  Some take in only the areas west of the Cascade Mountains and others include the traditional parts of the Pacific Northwest, including Idaho and Western Montana.  Some include parts of Northern California and the Alaska Panhandle.

For my own uses, I prefer not to have exactly defined boundaries, partially because I believe a lot of the world’s problems have began with trying to define absolute imaginary lines around land masses.  However, just so we know what we are talking about, my focus is on Western Oregon, Western Washington, and most of British Columbia west of the Cascade Mountains.  In a secondary sense, I would include the remainder of those three places, as well as Northern Idaho, the coastal parts of Northern California, and Southern Alaska.

The reason for giving a common name to these areas is that they, and their inhabitants, share many common traits.  Despite all of the arbitrary political boundaries in the region, we all tend to live the same sort of life, share a common climate, share a common geography, and share many political and cultural issues.  If you were to start over dividing up the world by regions that shared similar traits, it is likely that the rough notion of Cascadia would be one of those regions.

If you browse around the Internet, you will find a number of groups claiming to support some sort of “Cascadian independence” from the current government.  While it is fun to think about for a few minutes, the fact is that there will never be a “Republic of Cascadia” or anything similar, unless some drastic, unforeseen event shakes the world.  I think most of these websites and groups take themselves with the proverbial grain of salt anyway.  If you look deeper, you will find that many of the ideas that these groups suggest might have some valid use in the real life we do live within.  It does make sense that the leaders of all political units in Cascadia work together in issues that affect the region as a whole.

Whether those governments work together as a group called Cascadia or the Pacific Northwest or simply as neighbors working together, it is still important that they do join and work together to solve those mutual issues.  Issues like climate change, fisheries and resource management, transportation, mutual trade, and others are all equally important throughout the region.  We don’t need another new political subdivision.  We need the current ones to work together for the good of all.

As far as acceptance of the name, there does not seem to be any official recognition of the name anywhere.  However, there are a great and growing number of businesses in the region that have the word “Cascadia” as part of their name.  There are streets and neighborhoods named Cascadia.  Schools, including a public community college bear the name.  The Cascadia subduction zone is the major fault that runs the length of the region, likely the source of the next “that big one” earthquake.   So it doesn’t make for a big stretch that something called “Cascadia Journal” is covering news and events related to the region.

I have never been one to picture myself as “belonging” to any particular political subdivision, although I am currently a citizen of a particular country and a resident of a particular US state.  Those are the legal and political realities. However, if I look at myself and ask where I consider home to be, home is in Cascadia.

Anyone who has grown up in the Seattle area, especially if they are over the age of 40, is familiar with the exploits of Ivar Haglund.  Ivar is the well known founder of Ivar’s Restaurants in Seattle and throughout Cascadia.  He was also well known as a character and practical joker who formed a part of Seattle’s cultural life during his lifetime.

Ivar Feeding the Seagulls

Ivar was a folk musician and entertainer who made the big time with his seafood restaurant.  He was well known throughout his life for the puns he made and the pranks he pulled.  He was just gutsy enough to try anything for publicity.  It was said that he did not break the law, but he didn’t always follow it, either.  In the end, his exploits were always either harmless promotion for himself or his business, or some sort of giving back to the city that he grew up in and loved.  Even after his passing, the company for which he was the “flounder” kept his edgy attitude for marketing.

So this September, when the company announced that they had found some underwater billboards that had been placed around Puget Sound in the 1950’s to advertise to a potential underwater audience, Seattleites had the right to be skeptical.  A  few prominent people were in on the joke, like Bob Donegan, president of Ivar’s and Seattle historian Paul Dorpat, who among other projects, has written a book about Ivar Haglund.  When he told the Seattle Times that he had some evidence that the billboards could be legit, there was some cause to believe that the story could be true.  Unless you were not familiar with Haglund’s life and the Ivar’s culture.

This week it came to everyone’s attention that the story really was a hoax, and that the billboards had been “found” in the spot where they were placed not long before.  Everyone had a laugh, and everyone chuckled that Ivar himself would have done something like that.  Also, everyone went down and had a cup of chowder at Ivar’s.  Their sales of the famous soup quadrupled during the faux promotion.

That is to say, everyone had a laugh except for longtime Times reporter Erik Lacitis and his editors.  He felt duped that a noted historian had “lied” to him for the record.  Times Executive Editor David Boardman says he was distressed that Paul Dorpat, the respected Seattle historian and first vice president of HistoryLink.org, had given legitimacy to the fake billboards even though he knew otherwise.  He was going to review whether Dorpat, who had written a local history column for the Times since 1982, should continue to do so, since he had given incorrect information to another Times reporter.

My response to the Times on this matter is to get a life!  You were given a taste of Seattle’s past to write about, and another small chapter was written in the Ivar’s story.  The Times writer had even written the story giving the facts but expressing that it was likely some sort of stunt.  The actions of Dorpat are the result of a 71-year-old man who had spent a lot of time researching Haglund and was not beyond wanting Seattle to relive some of the past.  He and Ivar’s president Donegan get an A+ in my book for simultaneous creativity in marketing and creativity in presenting local history.  Thank you for the bit of fun.  And shame on the Times for not seeing this for what it is.  Fun.

It has been surprising to me how quickly the new term “Salish Sea” has come into usage to describe the inland waterways that comprise the areas we still call Puget Sound, the Georgia Strait, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

The Salish Sea comprises the inland waters around Puget Sound, the Georgia Strait, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Even the name of this blog suggests that the environment of our region of the world is more than simply the lands and waters on one side of a map line or another.  The term “Cascadia” implies that the area around Washington and Oregon, as well as those in lower British Columbia, share many common needs.  Despite the international boundary, the whole region has a similar climate, similar ecology, and similar needs.  In the same manner, the term “Salish Sea” recognizes that an issue in Puget Sound is quite often also an issue that affects the entire region.  Thus, it makes sense to give a name to the total of the inland sea in our region.

While the existing names for these waters will continue to be used as they always have, more and more people in the region have been using the new name when referring to the whole area.  This was recognized when Washington’s Board of Geographic Names approved the name at the state level Oct. 30 ,then the Federal Board on Geographic Names approved the idea Thursday, November 12.  These votes mean Salish Sea can be now added to U.S. maps and other materials.  It has been approved in British Columbia by the province’s names board, and Canadian national approval is expected soon.

Incidentally, there is some opposition to the name.  A few people are opposed because the word Salish, while being a word used to describe the some of the coastal Indian tribes native to the area, was not the actual word used by the natives of the region to describe these waters.  The other is the mistaken belief that the name Salish Sea will replace the names Puget Sound, Georgia Strait, and Strait of Juan de Fuca.  Of course they will not be replaced.  The new name simply refers to the area as a whole.

In fact, in an article a year and a half ago, I stated my objections to using the name.  While I still maintain the new name could have been more historically accurate, the new name has come into common usage.  It also tends to unify our region and show thet we really do share the same issues.  I now support the name.

In the meantime, the public seems to be taking to the new name, which has been growing in usage since the early 1990’s.  Some people who offer marine tours of the area are using the name.  It is handy when referring to the pods of orca whales that live in the area.  They are in the Georgia Strait or in Puget Sound, depending on the time of year, now the Salish Sea whales live in their home all year.  It makes sense to use the name when dealing with, say, fisheries issues.  A Puget Sound salmon differs from a Georgia Strait salmon only in which side of an imaginary line it happens to be on at the moment.  It gives the people who work in these industries something to call the entire area when referring to its needs.

Historically, there have been issues with the boundaries of these areas anyway.  The San Juan Islands were alternately part of the British or American territory, depending upon which map you believed. The fact is that historically, geographically, and environmentally, it is all part of the same region.

The individual waterways will always retain their original names and identities.  This change only reflects the ages old reality that this is truly a single inland sea.

I have been asked by more than the average number of people lately whether I believe that the world is coming to an end.  Yes, it will.  Depending upon your belief system, it will happen when the Creator says so, or when the Son of God returns to Earth, or when some catastrophic event from the field of astronomy or physics causes it to.  I believe that one of those is correct.  And, frankly, it doesn’t really matter which one is correct.

Yes, a new movie with the incredibly creative title “2012” has recently placed the date of this seemingly important event at 21 December 2012.  This is, of course, somehow more credible than all the other dates that have been quoted as the final day for life on our planet.   The reason why escapes me.  But the fact that all sorts of sources have been predicting the end of the world since the day after the world began, and that they have all been wrong, stands as no deterrent.  We seem to have a bit over two years to live.

The first question that popped into my mind?  Are we using 21 December on the Julian Calendar or on the Gregorian Calendar?  I mean, after all, if you are going to claim that the day was pre-chosen some number of thousands of years ago, was that prediction adjusted for adjustments that have been made to the calendar in that time? In any case, I feel the need to completely ignore the movie and it’s surrounding hype.

Let’s say the world is ending.  Will I care.  No.  Why not?  Because none of us will be here to talk about it.  If the world doesn’t end, life will go on as normal.  If it does end, then there will be a busy day at St Peter’s Gate, or wherever your particular belief system says you will be going afterward, but I’m sure the Creator has that one worked out, too.  When it ends, our worldly selves just won’t be around to care at that point.

I don’t know about this particular film, but in most of these cosmic disaster flicks, there will be six of us (five, plus one more found alive later under the burned hulk of a pickup truck) left to start over with this Earth thing.  The rest of us will be those incinerated skeletons littering the ground.   I will be one of those skeletons.  So will you.  Neither of us will care at that point that the world just ended.

This just leaves me asking “What the heck?”  Movies are supposed to be fun.  Entertaining.  This movie will be entertaining for those waiting for the end of the world.  If you are, go for it!  For those of us who look forward to the Sun coming up tomorrow, then go on about your business.  Don’t bother me with all of that.  I will be the one not caring when it happens.

Of course, it might not hurt to hedge our bets.  Shall we make a dinner reservation for 21 December 2012 at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

PS #1: When the world does end, if you want to tell me that I was wrong, just email me here at Cascadia Journal.

PS #2:  Just in case the world does end, I have tagged this post under the category “Environment.”  Just in case.

Since the days of exploration in the history of both the United States and Canada, the brave and the not-so-brave among us have put themselves into harms way in the name of the good of our nations.  They have prevented our territories from attack, and they have saved the lives of our citizens and residents.  They have protected our territory and our freedom.  In many cases, they have gone abroad, not only to keep threats away from our shores, but to protect those who were unable to protect themselves.  Some of these people returned safely when they were done, some came back maimed, and some were returned in body bags.

We thank those people for their service, for doing the right thing to protect us, no matter what the circumstances.  The reasons for their sacrifice have been clear in some cases.  In other cases, the political expediency of the campaigns that they were involved in were not quite as clear.  The political story that surrounds their sacrifice does not diminish the thanks and the honor that these souls deserve.  For whatever reason they were sent to serve us, their service is worthy of our honor.

On this day when we celebrate and thank those who have put themselves in harm’s way, I would like to make a request of our governments.  I would like to request that our governments think very carefully about the safety of our troops when they make their decisions to continue to send them into the path of harm.  Canada has already made some good choices in removing their troops from the current skirmishes where it is not clear that the needs there are worth the sacrifice.  The United States still needs to look harder at what we are using our military for.

We have historically stepped in when other people have been harmed.  We can argue that we need to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect those who live there from harm.  We can also argue that we need to continue to fight in those places to keep harm from reaching our shores.    I’m pretty certain that the average citizen here doesn’t get enough information in their news to make an educated decision on these matters.  I would insist, however, that our leaders who are privy to this information look at all of their options before continuing to place out troops in harm’s way.

We certainly have many options for dealing with these areas.  Are we really unable to deal with these enemies in a timely manner?  Do we really know who the enemy is?  Is there a way to work smarter and not harder to get things to a conclusion?  Have we really used enough diplomacy as an alternative to military might to solve that region’s problems?  Should we be asking other countries for diplomatic assistance rather than military assistance to get the job done?  Have we really looked hard at what solutions exist that do not invilve putting more of our sons and daughters into harm’s way?

I have a clear separation in my mind of the politics of war and the sacrifice of the troops who have kept us safe over the years.  I feel I can criticize our leaders for their role, while thanking our service members for theirs.  On this Veterans Day, we should honor the troops, present and past, as much as we can.  If we are leaders who have the power to do so, we should honor them by getting them out of harm’s way as soon as is practical.  Do not increase the numbers we have in the Middle East, Mr Obama.  Bring as many of them home as soon as possible.  Make that decision today.  Do it today.