Dear (Eventual) Stickies & Great-Grandstickies

The Stickies, if you are unaware, is the name I use for my grandkids, as a group. They are no longer sticky, so I pre-apologize to any given one of them if, after reaching adulthood, they should decide they are dysfunctional H. sapiens and innocent victims of this, that, and the other and, that one of the this, that, or the others turn out to be the fact I hung the name "the Stickies" around their delicate little neck.

I'm cautiously optimistic, however. It's early days yet, but so far they all seem to be in pretty good shape considering they live in a freakishly large household that includes me.

And now, if you'll forgive me, gentlereaders -- this is an open letter to them, they who are one of the primary reasons I continue to crank out my weekly column in spite of the fact I've yet to come close to being able to quit my day job -- so I must move on.

[Oh, but before I forget (sorry), let me publicly state that I don't expect any given one of them, no matter how financially successful they may turn out to be, to take care of me in my impending dotage. I'm sure I'll be fine.]

Dear Stickies & Great-Grandstickies,
It's the week before the presidential election of 2016...

[Sorry, sorry. I forgot to mention that I'm not writing to the current Stickies, who are busy being reasonably well-adjusted kids and/or young adults. I'm writing to the eventual Stickies, that is, the future, grown up Stickies, and also to the next generation of Stickies, my great-grandstickies. I hope to live long enough to not only meet my great-grandstickies but also to have a (hopefully) positive influence on their lives. Obviously, the odds of that happening decrease with each passing year but at least they will have access to my feeble scribbles. 

See, the Stickies probably won't remember all that much about the current election. The oldest is a newly minted 16-year-old (happy birthday, dude!). My great-grandstickies will be learning about it in history class. So, it's occurred to me that I can provide both groups with a first person account of this and other things as I experience them in real time. This will provide them with my perspective, and not just what they vaguely remember or learn about in history class. Hopefully, they will find this interesting.

Both of my parents died relatively young, long before my extended callowyute stage ended. I would love to have access to their thoughts on the Great Depression, WW2, and myriad other things.]

Dear Stickies & Great-Grandstickies,
It's the week before the presidential election of 2016 -- The Donald (Trump) v. The Hilliam (a symbiotic amalgamation of Hillary and William (a.k.a. Slick Willie) Clinton.

I'm reasonably certain cautiously optimistic that the history books will report that one of the defining characteristics, perhaps the defining characteristic, of the contest is that both candidates, according to the polls (and this is one case where a sharply divided nation agrees that even the polls are correct), are disliked and distrusted by more people than folks who like and trust them. Trust me, this is an accurate assessment.

It's not uncommon for even a given supporter of either candidate to state something like, "Sure, she's a world-class liar and a least a little bit crooked but..., or, "Sure, he often comes across as being a little nuts and he's at least a little bit crooked" -- but, "she/he is even worse."

By the way, I changed reasonably certain to cautiously optimistic because if the Hilliam wins I'm sure they will continue to push the nation in a leftward direction. At the moment at least, the public school system, as well as the majority of colleges and universities, are both guided by a philosophy that ranges from solidly left-wing to extremely left-wing.

This philosophy is currently somewhat enamored with revisionist history and free speech limitations, justified by the pursuit of political correctness. This is for your own good, of course, to protect you and your fellow delicate flowers and snowflakes from the inevitable trauma that will arise once your realize that the real world doesn't hand out participation trophies. So, who knows what the history books may actually say about this particular election considering we're told history is written by the winners.

Of course, I realize that your estimable parents didn't raise you that way and did everything they could to shield you from the liberal industrial complex. I highly recommend keeping this knowledge under your hats as much as possible, particularly if by the time you're grups, these unfortunate trends continue. It will give you an edge many of your peers will not have access to, or even understand.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about the fact that the richest, most powerful, and (arguably, it's complicated) freest nation the world has ever seen (so far at least) is about to choose a new leader, and most of its citizens wish there was a viable alternative to choose from. There ain't, and that's a fact, regardless of what the history books (will) say.

The Hilliam have a long history of corruption and managing to just miss paying a price for it (again, so far at least) and if one of you should decide to make a study of their lives in search of definitive answers you will find yourself on safari in a dizzinformation jungle. It's a man-made jungle they designed, with no shortage of help from our current cultural clerisy, a clerisy that believes that the end justifies the memes.(1) 

The bottom line is that since Slick Willie and the little woman left the White House they have amassed a fortune, estimated to be at least a $100,000,000 (and change) -- by being popular after dinner speakers. This is all you need to know.

As for the Donald, he's an alleged billionaire that has a history of endlessly shifting political, cultural and ethical stances. He seems to be rich, we don't know how rich, he won't release his tax returns. I normally would care less how rich he actually is, or even if, as they say in Texas, he's all hat and no cattle.

BIG BUT.

He markets himself as a wildly successful self-made man who's willing to use his immense natural ability to solve all of America's problems. Millions of people believe him.

Now, I've no idea how rich, successful, or intelligent he actually is -- but I do know this. He makes P.T. Barnum look like a rank amateur. He knows that people lead with their hearts and use their brains to justify their behavior after the smoke clears. He knows how to use this knowledge to build a following and battle his enemies. He knows that The Gubmint has become too large and too powerful and that the baby boomers knocked over the melting pot and set the culture on fire.

He knows that even many people who can't bring themselves to vote for a vulgarian are thinking that maybe even he would be better than the Hilliam, who personify everything that's wrong with America. We've no idea what he might actually do, but, [forgive me gentlereaders, for indulging my inner vulgarian -- desperate times/desperate measures] perhaps we need someone to go to DC and fuck shit up.

So, there you have it my dear Stickies and great-grandstickies. We are supposed to choose between the Wicked Witch of the Northeast and the Wizzard of Oz. I hope for your sakes it all turned out OK. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


(1) The Clerisy

If you wish to react, leave a comment, share, etc. -- please scroll down. Also, you can do your Amazon shopping by clicking on the banner down there, thus helping to ensure that me and mine are not rendered homeless (no pressure...).

Free content offer. Please feel free to share, borrow, or steal any of my weekly copyrighted columns and do with them what you will, 24 hrs. after initial publication. All I ask is that you post my URL, TheFlyoverlandCrank.com, and mention my name, Mark Mehlmauer. For details click on the Take My Posts... Please! tab. Price: Free and No Charge. TYSAM

The History of the World (Part Five)

So, having managed to reach the year 1776 in spite of hundreds of thousands of years primarily devoted to killing each other while avoiding being killed by the somewhat bloodthirsty Mother Nature, two really cool things happened. The American experiment was launched (see parts three and four) and Mr. Smith published a book.

Adam Smith was, and is, a well-regarded absent minded professor type with a first rate mind. He gave up his day job, as a popular professor at Glasgow university in 1764, to tutor and travel with a young Scottish nobleman (road trip!). They spent a couple of years touring continental Europe and met several leading thinkers of the day (such as Benjamin Franklin) and Mr. Smith was given a life pension by the grateful nobleman that enabled him to spend the next ten years or so working on his magnum opus, “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.”

In other words, he set out to discover the best policies a given nation should pursue so that everyone could make a buck. The answer, as summed up by P.J. O’Rourke is, “Economic progress depends upon a trinity of individual prerogatives: pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade.”

Warning: do not try and read The Wealth of Nations unless you enjoy the writing style of 18th-century century academics (I’m thinking this is a relatively small group of folks), and, you’re much smarter and more patient than I am (I’m thinking this is a relatively large group of folks). The commas and semicolons seemingly reproduce themselves as you try and decipher the text. Find a commentator or two that you trust to render Mr. Smith’s ideas into modern English.

In Mr. Smith’s defense, it ain’t easy to invent a field of study, particularly a field like modern economics. Also, I must warn any kneejerk anti-capitalists (a group that included me when I was a callowyute) that beating up on Mr. Smith because you think he was just another greed head will  make you look goofy as he’s well known for his belief that accumulating wealth and material goods won’t make you happy.

Before inventing modern economics, his thing was exploring morality and ethics, figuring out how we should treat each other, how we could all get along. He wrote a book entitled The Theory of Moral Sentiments that is still highly regarded. Incidentally, both it and The Wealth of Nations were best sellers in their day and almost immediately literally changed the world.  

He just wanted to figure out what the optimal system was for a free people to attain whatever level of economic security they thought was necessary and appropriate to keep the wolf from the door. He warned the world about crony capitalism. Although he was financially quite successful, he quietly and discreetly gave away most of his money and lived simply. I highly recommend P.J. O’Rourke’s, “On The Wealth of Nations.” Mr. O’Rourke is not an economist, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but that’s a whole different essay. He is, however, very smart, very funny, and lives in the real world.

“Economic progress depends upon a trinity of individual prerogatives: pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade,” says O’Rourke, stating the fundamentals of Smith’s thought.  That’s it? That’s all it takes for a country to be prosperous?  Everdamnbody? Yup. Well, more or less. The rule of law is also essential component if you think that it’s important that everdamnbody should have to play by the same rules and bullies should be spanked.  

Disclaimer: I’m an unrepentant wild-eyed free marketeer, a UWFM, here, have a bumper sticker. I don’t care for the word capitalist because of the tendency of well-meaning, progressives, socialists and communists to frequently use it as an epithet. Also, I describe myself as a sorta/kinda or bleeding heart libertarian, primarily because I’m all for a rationally designed safety net and many libertarians think that’s wrong-headed or impossible.

Aside: Communism, in spite of its adherents claim that it would work if ever done properly, is an obvious dead end, often literally. Socialism is a great idea, all we have to do is change human nature first and lock up all the screwballs like me that are obsessed with personal freedom. Progressivism and/or democratic socialism, or how to have your cake and eat it tooism, is the current flavor of the month for the utopianists of the world. Many people want the benefits of a free market combined with a big, juicy welfare state with millions of rules and millions of unionized bureaucrats, but someone else, preferably the evil rich, should pay the high taxes needed to fund  the necessities of life, such as Obamaphones for example. More on the resulting mess later.

Back to Adam Smith. Smith’s work contradicted a widely held belief of his time, mercantilism. This is the belief that a nation’s wealth is determined by how much gold, silver, cash, ginormous televisions etc. it can accumulate, after all,  there’s only so much wealth to go around. Therefore, you should export for the cash and block, or at least penalize, imports. This view of the world, that currently is enjoying a comeback, leads otherwise clear thinking people to believe in the Boarding House Pie Fallacy.  

Say you're living in a boarding house. It’s dinner time and Mrs. McGillicuddy is serving up her famous apple pie for dessert. Since there’s only so much pie to go around, and fat Frank is at the table, it behooves everyone to employ a strategery that will ensure an equitable portion of pie. Mr. Smith’s insight (not to be confused with Mrs. Smith's pies), and he’s not alone, was that boarding house wisdom has limited applicability. There’s an easier and more effective way to get what you want that has the added benefit of not having to impose high tariffs (which begat high prices) and over-regulate anyone -- the pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade. Skilfully employed these three ensure that everyone can have their own pie. To be continued...

Have an OK Day.

©2016 Mark Mehlmauer 

Gentlereaders, my Tuesday and Thursday mini-posts are about to disappear, at least for the time being. It looks like I'm going to need to have a new knee installed and before I do I'm going to be meeting all sorts of medical specialists. Turns out that if you're a man who is technically over 50 you're supposed to have various medical shtuff done on a regular basis. Who knew?

Having not seen a doctor since the late 80s (for a CDL physical... it's complicated) I'm running a bit behind and have all sorts of i dotting and t crossing to do (tests and appointments) before I can get myself a shiny new knee. 

So -- to make things easier, not miss any mini-post postings, and most importantly, to make sure I don't miss publishing my beloved (by me anyway) weekly column (dude, it's what I do!) -- mini-posts are outta here.   

The Pussy Bow Incident

I've been at this for awhile now, this blogging thing. I've been cranking out weekly columns for well over a year and now I'm playing around with a mini-post concept. While I'm not a great writer, I think I'm decent. Not the same old same old anyway. I'm aware that 90% of wannabe writers will never be published by someone other than themselves. I'm aware that 90% of published writers will never quit their day job. I'm aware that I picked those percentages out of the air, so don't go a-googling in search of veracity. They're covered under the terms of my creative license.

That said, although I realize that making enough money from my work to impact the lives of me and the Stickies, of ever being more than a hobbyist, is highly unlikely, I still dream about getting lucky, and I keep trying.

However, I've just been rudely reminded that if my judgment was better, if I picked the right topics to write about, and when, if I were more culturally aware, I might be wildly successful by now. See, I thought writing about the pussy bow incident, but I passed, and now the world has moved on.


In case you missed it, Melania Trump wore a shirt/blouse/top (?) decorated with what amounts to a huge floppy bow tie to the second presidential debate that I now know is called a pussy bow. My exhaustive research reveals that it was considered cool at one time to tie bows around the necks of cats. This phenomenon was the inspiration for the unfortunately named shirt/blouse/top (?) known as a pussy    bow. I was unable to discover if the obvious loss of dignity to any felines thus abused in this manner was noted or recorded.

At some point, some-one, started hanging them around the necks of women and they've been going in and out of style ever since. I confess, that although I've successfully managed to achieve the age of 39 on 24 successive occasions, I was completely unaware of any of this until recently.

And then -- Melania Trump showed up for the second presidential cat fight debate wearing a fuchsia (I had to look that up too) pussy bow shirt/blouse/top (?) and this kicked off a kerfuffle, that I thought  was goofy. The kerfuffle in question, generated a brief (thankfully) burst of tweets, comments, articles, postings, etc. Was she subtly supporting the Donald? or was it a passive-aggressive condemnation of his "locker room talk"?

Which is why -- I saw an opportunity to make fun of the whole goofy incident. But I passed and it faded away quickly. I refer to the fuss about the unfortunately named shirt/blouse/top (?), not the fuss about the Donald's choice of words, which the Hilliam will make sure never goes away -- but I was wrong.

See, a few days after the second debate, Maureen Dowd, a...

Oh, wait! before I forget (this will just take a sec'), since the Donald claims that the Hilliam is the tip of the spear of a vast conspiracy by the media, The Gubmint in general, the FBI and the Justice Department in particular (and other conspirators to be named later) and not just the result of a fame and money loving, agendicized, infotainment manufacturing media monster and formerly (more or less)  respected and independent, The Gubmint, agencies that have been politicized by King (I've got a phone and I've got a pen) Barry  -- deep breath -- am I the only one that thinks this is a vast left-wing conspiracy that was set into motion by the Hilliam when they unearthed the vast right-wing conspiracy that had placed Monica Lewinsky in the White House in order to trick Slick Willie into using her as a humidor?

[Insert sound of the loudest gym teacher's whistle you've ever heard, here.

Wait just a minute Sparky! Sez Dana, my imaginary gentlereader, grinning from ear to ear. While Marie-Louise (my muse) and I both love the paragraph long sentence (ML, a woman of few words, is smiling, nodding, and scratching my back), is this train going anywhere or have you taken the wrong spur?]

Oh, sorry -- yes, definitely. OK, so, Maureen Dowd (or MoDo), in case you don't know, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist who writes a weekly column for The New York Times. Remind you of anyone? Except for the facts that she writes for the NYT, leans decidedly to the left, knows The Donald personally, hangs with the elites of Manhattan and D.C. and won a Pulitzer for writing about the Hilliam a thousand years ago when they became world famous child abusers -- we're very much alike.

See, she doesn't care much for the Donald or the Hilliam either, and her writing style is not the same old same old, for which she's often criticized by important people, as I hope to someday be.

And, whereas, I ignored the Pussy Bow Incident, she wrote an entire (sort of) column (1) about it in addition to her weekly one. I say sort of because it was chock full of mindless tweet quotes -- rather like something you'd find in a USA Today online article. I normally enjoy reading her stuff but I find myself turning, more and more, into an anti- tweeter. In fact, I'm thinking about starting a movement to oppose the pervasive spread of this cultural malignancy. I'm formulating a plan to...

Insert sound of the loudest gym teacher's whistle you've ever heard, here.

Sorry. Well, there you have it. A clear explanation as to why MoDo is a well connected, Pulitzer Prize-winning, Manhattan dwelling, New York Times supported writer and I'm a blogger limping along in Flyoverland.

I was feeling sort of depressed about my situation, but then I read an article (2) in USA Today online the day after the most recent debate that explained why the Hilliam wore white that night that included the line, "It's also been suggested that suffragettes wore white because its connotations of virginal purity helped shield them from the accusations of sexual immorality that were often hurled at them from the movement's opponents." The Hilliam and virginal purity mentioned in the same article.

I'm still grinnin', you can't make this shtuff up folks!

And then I stumbled on an article (3) from The Hill that was written the day before the last debate that reported that Madonna, who apparently has been reduced to being an opening act, pledged to perform oral sex on men if they vote for The Hilliam.

I'm feeling much better now, and I do believe I shall remain in Flyoverland.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

(1) MoDoCo(lumn) 
(2) USA Today
(3) Madonna