Old Movie Reivew: The Bat (1959)

     While I was reading about Agnes Moorehead, an actress that I admire very much, I ran across a reference to a movie called The Bat, in which she stars as an author of mystery and suspense books.  Her character in The Bat, Cornelia van Gorder, encounters a real life mystery involving embezzled bank money, a criminal called “The Bat,” and real bats.

     The movie also stars Vincent Price, another of my favorite old-time actors.  I was surprised at the way he portrayed his character in the movie–pleasantly surprised.  I think of him as a heavy-handed actor with an eerie melifluous voice.  In this movie he spoke in a standard miwestern American dialect and was very subltle in his technique.

     An interesting fact about the cast of the movie is that Darla Hood, the Darla of the Our Gang and Little Rascals movies, plays a minor role.

     I watched The Bat last night on Google Video.  It was brilliant.  The humor was understated and brilliant.  At times the acting was overdone, as was common in that era; nevertheless it was superb acting.  The plot did not actually leave me in suspense that much, but it was captivating, and there were some wonderful twists at the end, which I shall not spoil for you.

     If you have any interest at all in good, old movies, you ought to watch this one.  As I mentioned, you can watch the entire movie on Goggle Video.  It is also available for sale on DVD.

What Is the Military For?

     Before we ask any other issues about the military, we ought to first consider what the military’s purpose is to begin with.  Before tackling issues of who should or should not be in the military, we ought to ask, “What is the military for?”

     One of my great-uncles was prevented from joining the military because of a visual disability.  Another great-uncle was kept out because of flat feet.  Although they were disappointed, they understood that the military needs people in good physical condition and with no disabilities that would hinder their ability to perform their duties. 

     The military is not a group that you join in order to feel good about yourself.  It is not a laboratory for sociological experiments.  It is there to provide defense for our country, and a person should join it in order to serve the country.

     I am ambivalent about the role of homosexual people in the military.  I have nothing against their serving; however, I can understand why current members of the military might object to sharing barracks with such people.

     I think back to my college days.  My dormitory had community showers.  I was not too keen on showering with other people, and so I tried to time my showers when nobody else was in there.  It often occurred that others were taking a shower at the same time that I was.  The banter was always interesting.  The general direction of it was that most of the guys hoped that nobody in there was a homosexual.  They would not appreciate being “checked out” by another guy. 

     Of course, there were some suspected homosexuals in the dorm, but nobody who was completely “out.”  It was in the South, after all.  It was also understood that it would be very awkward for a straight male to discover that his room mate, especially his shower mate might be viewing him in a way that he would not appreciate.  It was for that reason that our dorm was for males and other dorms were for females.

     I’m guessing that most men in the military feel the same way.  While they might not say it out loud in certain circles, they probably discuss it among themselves and not always in the most polite language, I’m betting. 

     I do not see any reason to put them in that uncomfortable position.  The military does not exist to force people to give up their queasiness about undressing in front of people who might be attracted to them sexually.

     If the Obama administration does change current military policy, then I think they will have to find away to allow homosexual people to serve in the military but to have separate sleeping quarters and separate bathing facilities.  I do not know how else to give homosexual people the freedom to express themselves as they see themselves but still safeguard the real concerns about modesty that the other men and women might have.

     The military does not exist to make people equal.  It does not exist to push the norms.  It does not exist to make people feel good about themselves or to help them grapple with a lifetime of rejection or mistreatment.  It exists to defend the country, and it is important to make it function the best possible way for all the great men and women who want to serve.

Race Relations and Me

     I was born in New England.  One of my ancestors fought on the Union side in the Civil War.  As far as I can tell none of my ancestors ever owned a slave, and many of them were strongly opposed to slavery.  In the colonial days, the majority of my ancestors from at least 1640 or so were Friends (Quakers).

     My parents did not know many black people when they were growing up, but they believed absolutely that all people were equal regardless of race. 

     My mother told me many stories about one of her high school teachers, who was an African American man.  He was probably the smartest man in her town, and she never found that remarkable.  Why shouldn’t a black man be erudite?

     My mother and father made friends with an inter-racial couple.  There were not that many mixed-race couples around in those days, and they were often ostracized.  Knowing that they were social outcasts to some degree, my parents were happy to befriend them.

     My parents hated segregation.  Frankly, they did not even understand how anyone could ever make black people sit at the back of a bus or drink from separate fountains.   They were not activists, but in their own quiet ways they simply eschewed bigotry, prejudice, and racism.  Our family attended multi-racial churches.  My parents taught us to respect all people and treat them as equal members of the human race.  Had we ever uttered a racial epithet, it would have been one of the most egregious things we could have done, and I expect my mother would have washed our mouths out with soap.

          Eventually we moved to the South.  I was in seventh grade, and I was dumbfounded to hear my white classmates talk about the time when the “black kids came over to the white school.”  I had gone to school all my other years with black kids and brown kids and with just about every shade of skin that exists among people.  I found that in my new school there was still a lot of tension between the white kids and black kids, but I could also see that things were changing.  As kids played sports together or acted in plays together or played in the marching band together, the prejudices were waning and the tension was easing. 

     During the first week that we were in that school my brother and I missed the bus to go home.  The middle school principal offered to drive us home.  When we got there my mother invited him in for a drink in order to thank him.  “No, ma’am.  You don’t want me to come into your house,” he said, looking around nervously at neighboring houses.  He was black.

     “Oh, yes I do,” my mother answered.  “And I do not care who sees you come in.”

     On one of our band trips in high school, my band director had a huge dilemma.  After grouping every for room assignments, he realized that he would have two black boys left over.  He could not give them their own room, because of budgetary concerns.  He also would have one white boy left over.  He asked me if I would stay with the black boys.  He told me that I was the only one that he knew who would not mind sharing a room with them and who would have the courage to stand up to other students.  Although I was somewhat scared of the repercussions, I agreed.

     During my first two years of college my very best friend was a black guy named John.  Yes, some of my best friends have been black–literally.  It’s not some pathetic cover for my secret alignment with the KKK.  He and I joked with each other very comfortably, and during one Thanksgiving break when he could not go home, I invited him to come home with me.  My family accepted him as one of our own.  Of course.

     I could narrate many other experiences involving people of other races.  I could tell about the time that I fell in love with a black girl.  I could tell about the time that I reprimanded a student for telling a racial joke in an all-white school and how he threatened that his father would come after me for being a “nigger-lover.”  I wanted to  paint a certain picture here.  When I say that I am not a racist, it’s because I’m not.  I never have been.  I will not say that I am, just to satisfy liberal white people’s false guilt or liberal black people’s perpetual victimhood.  I hate racism, and one of the last things on earth that I would ever want to be is a racist.   (Some liberal white people really have been guilty, and some liberal black people really have been victims, but that’s not what I’m talking about.)

     I’m not some person who used to say the N-word but then saw the error of my ways.  I’m not just some cog in the machine of systemic racism.  I know that systemic racism exists, fortunately less than it used to, but I oppose it.  I’m not part of it.  I’m no activist, but I have tried hard to live my life without any taint of bigotry or prejudice.  If everyone just did that, we would not need activism against racism.

     Some people will say that I defend myself too much or that I am in denial.  It’s weird that in our age of psychobabble, denial amounts to proof of guilt.  If I deny that I am an alcoholic, that’s proof that I am.  If I deny that I am a racist, that is proof that I am.  Whatever!

     Sometimes people deny things because they really are not that way.

Justice for Firefighters in Connecticut

     Suppose you were a working class American serving with the Fire Department of New Haven, Connecticut.  You want to get ahead in life, so you study hard for the promotion exam to achieve a higher rank and a higher salary.  Owing to a learning disability, you have to hire somebody to read the study material out loud for you.  You record the material so that you can listen to it for several hours every day.

     Then suppose that when it comes time for the results to be announced, the Fire Department says that the results would not be certified or announced and that nobody would receive the promotions.  They don’t even tell you what your score was, so that you could at least see how well you did.

     That happened to Frank Ricci and to other members of New Haven Fire Department.  The reason that the test results were not certified and announced is that there was a huge disparity between the scores of the Caucasians, the Hispanics, and the blacks who took the test.

     Some background information is very important.  The Fire Department had taken great pains and had spent $100,000 to get a fair test and fair testing situation.  They hired a firm to write the test.  The firm based the test and the study material on interviews with high-ranking officers with the fire department, and they made sure that they included a significant number of minorities in those interviews in order to avoid bias.  For the oral portion of the test they made sure that each panel of judges had a white firefighter, a black firefighter, and an Hispanic firefighter.  The questions were job related and really had no connection to the test-taker’s race or ethnic background.

     The Fire Department and the City of New Haven were stunned when the results were determined.  They would have had to fill almost all the available positions with white people, according to the rules already in place.  They were terrified that the African Americans who took the test would sue them.  They threw out the test.

     So Frank Ricci and nineteen other plaintiffs, including one Hispanic person, sued them instead, believe that they were the ones who had been discriminated against.  The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with them and overturned lower court rulings in favor of the city and the other defendants.

     The majority members of the court ruled that, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an entity is not allowed to change test results in order to achieve a favorable racial “balance.”  They found that the city and the Fire Department had done everything possible to achieve a fair, unbiased promotional procedure.  They also found that the main alternative proposed, weighting the written and oraltests differently, was not possible.  The city had a contractual agreement with the union to count the written test as 60% and the oral portion as 40%.  They could not break the contract with the union and make the ratio 30/70 as suggested by some of the defendants in the case.  Besides, that would be changing the rules of the “game” after it had already been played and the results were not acceptable to certain players.

     I applaud the Supreme Court.  I would never want any qualified black people being turned down for a promotion because of the color of their skin.  However, I do not want to see any other qualified people turned down for a promotion because of the color of their skin either.  It should be wrong no matter which way it goes.  What would the city say to Mr. Ricci if he got the highest score on the test but was refused the promotion because he was “white”–”Sorry, sir, you are the most qualifed, but you’re the wrong color.”  How would that not be racism?  I put “white” in quotation marks because Ricci is not exactly an Anglo-Saxon name.  I would guess that none of his ancestors were slaveholders, and that they suffered a bit of discriminattion themselves.

News Article:  Supreme Court rules in favor of Conn. firefighters, The Boston Globe

The Decision:  Ricci et al. v. DeStefano et al.

Spelling Rule a Useless Tool?

     Did you ever learn the “i before e” rule?  I did, and I believe that it helped me with words such as the believe that I just wrote a few words back.  I cannot conceive (there’s another one) of not teaching kids the rule and encouraging them to use it.  The British government, however, can. 

     I teach the rule in the longer form:

I before E, except after C

Or when sounded as “ay,” as in neighbor or weigh.

     The rule in that form covers almost every word in the English language.  A few exceptions are either, neither, weird, foreign, sovereign, seize, counterfeit, and protein.

     The one part of the rule that is pretty much inviolable, as far as I can tell is that ei is the correct combination to use for the “ee” sound after the letter c, as in deceive, receive, conceive, perceive, and ceiling, along with all their various forms and with words formed from them (receipt, imperceivable, deceitfulness, etc.)

     I have found it very helpful for remembering tricky words such as friend and believe. 

     What do you think?  Is it a useful rule? 

     This discussion brings to mind the general difficulties in English spelling.  Do you think that our orthography should be reformed?  Do you think spelling is even important?

     I wish that our spelling system were simpler, but nobody has the authority to make it happen.  For Americans at least, a new spelling system would probably end up like the metric system.  It would also have some disadvantages. 

1. Most of the books of the last 200 years would appear very odd until they were all updated. 
2. Changing spelling patterns would obscure the etymology of words.  For example, spelling police as “polees” would mask the fact that it was borrowed from French and spelling photograph as “fotograf” woudl hide the fact that it is derived from Greek. 
3. Adults would have a difficult time adjusting to a new system, unless it were phased in very gradually, which means that you would have two systems operating at once, and that could lead to confusion and frustration.
4. English has many homophones, such as weight and wait, bare and bear, and cot and caught.  Although context almost always reveals the meaning, it is handy to look at the written word and know instantly what it refers to.  Picture this:  I could not wate to tell my wife that my wate had gone down.  or I got up from my cot and cot the bare, but I could not bare to kill him.  Yuck!

     All in all, I would like to see a simpler spelling system for English, but I would like it to evolve gradually and naturally.  A perusal of books from the 15th to the 21st Centuries shows that it has already been happening and that it continues to happen.  As I always say, people at large usually do better work than committees.

Michael and Me

     I am one of the few people in the world, apparently, who was not a fan of Michael Jackson.  The fact is, I simply do not like his style of music.  On top of that, I am not entranced by sequined gloves, moonwalking, or crotch-grabbing. 

     Therefore, I am not grieving his death the way that some people are.

     I am still interested in the story, however, for a few reasons.  Although I did not like Michael Jackson’s music, I am touched with nostaligia when I hear it, particularly the music of the Jackson Five.  He is as much a part of my history as he is a part of the history of his most fanatical devotees.  He is also an interesting case study.  I am interested in him for all the reasons that he worked to make himself interesting.

     I cannot help but be curious about his plastic surgeries and his apparently intentional androgyny.  I am curious about his relationship to children.  Was it good, clean fun, albeit very unusual, or was it bad and hurtful, as some have alleged?  I am very curious about his children.  I wonder how they are doing.  I wonder what it has been like to grow up with Michael Jackson as a father and with either an absent mother (in two cases) or an unknown mother (in one case).  I am curious about his financial status.  Apparently he went from being a multi-millionaire to a debtor to the tune of several million dollars.  How will that impact his survivors?  How sad to fall from such financial success to complete financial ruin!   

     Now I am curious about the cause of death.  Was it related to drug use or abuse?  Why did he suffer cardiac arrest (or, as some news reports indicate, respiratory arrest) with a doctor right on hand?  If he was in good health, then obviously something went very wrong, and a mystery needs to be solved.  If he was suffering from ill health, then one wonders why adequate treatment could not be found.

     So, like millions of other people, I have read the news reports and watched the videos.  I have also prayed.  I have prayed for his children, his parents, his siblings, his friends, and all those others who miss him much more than I do.  May God comfort them.  May He watch over them and bless their futures.

How to Pay for Government Health Care

     So how is it that the government will be able to provide cheaper health insurance than private companies?

     Will they hire fewer employees?  Hardly.  With no profit motive, the government health insurance company will create many new jobs, as government agencies always do.  Does anyone doubt that it won’t become another bloated bureaucracy?  If you do, what do you base your doubt on?  Not real life experience, that’s for sure.

     Let’s say that I’m wrong, and the government will run its health insurance program more efficiently than private companies.  They will hire fewer employees, pay them smaller salaires, and keep administrative costs and overhead to a minimum.  What will that mean in terms of service?  Will a sick person be able to talk to a representative right away?  Will claims be covered in a timely fashion?  Will disputes be settled quickly and fairly?  I’m not naive enough to believe that any of those things would happen.  I have dealt with government agencies.

     Of course the government could charge less if costs go down.  Will doctors suddenly cut their fees?  Will hospitals charge less?  Will drug prices go down?  I don’t think that any of those things is likely.  Unless the government puts a cap on prices and fees, they might even go up, since people will be happy to charge Uncle Sam as much as they can get away with.  In fact, it will be extemely easy for backroom deals to occur between healthcare providers and the government health agency, as they already do with existing government programs.

     One way to make insurance cheaper is to refuse particular services.  Private insurances companies already try to do that and sometimes actually get away with it.  At least people can sue their insurance company when they are trying to break the law or violate their contract.  Will we be able to sue Uncle Sam?

     Another way to make it cheaper is to charge higher premiums but pretend to charge lower premiums.  How could they do that?  They could do it in several specific ways, but it would generally amount to taking higher taxes from citizens.  It would be just like the bogus claim that ethanol costs less than petroleum, which is true only because the government is subsidizing the entire biofuels industry from the growth of the grain to the processing of the fuel to the distribution of it to fuel retailers.  Everytime you buy gasoline with ethanol, you are paying again for fuel that you paid for with taxes.  Some kind of similar subsidy will be used for a government health insurance program.  Millions of workers will look at the deductions for health insurance on their paycheck and think that they are getting a good deal, not realizing that they are paying even more for it out of their regular income tax.

A more dangerous way to make it cheaper would be to subsidize it but not confiscate more in taxes.  This would amass a huge deficit.  The solution, with Democrats in power, would probably be to just churn out more currency.  Does anyone need me to explain why that is bad?

     I’m not suggesting that our health care system is perfect.  Far from it.  It’s a big mess.  I just don’t want an even bigger mess. 

     Oh, and before you tell me that the British system is better, I want to mention that I have been learning about how great it is.  I am part of an online support group for people who suffer from migraine-associated vertigo like me.  In the United Kingdom, many of them have reported that they have to wait for several months for an appointment in a special neurology clinic.  They must be referred by general practitioners, some of whom, reportedly, are reluctant to do so.  The Americans on the board can usually get into such a clinic in the United States in two or three weeks, simply by asking their general practitioner to refer them.  While the British sufferers wait, often unable to work and in misery, their American counterparts are getting thorough tests and helpful drugs.  Oh, and some of the Brits report that they must travel long distances to get to such a clinic, whereas most Americans are within an hour’s drive to one.

Does the Law Matter?

     Some Latinos in America are suggesting that illegal aliens should boycott the U. S. Census.  It seems that everybody is missing the bigger picture here.  The people in question are living in the United States illegally.  Therefore, there should not be a question of whether to count them or not.  Rather, they should be deported, or they should become legal residents if our lawmakers craft a way for them to do so.

     At this point I’m not sure I care whether they stay or go.  Most of them have made themselves a part of our economy.  However, as a matter of principle I think that laws should be enforced.  If there is no intention of enforcing a particular law, then it should be repealed.

Burkas

     What do you think of burkas, also known as burqas?  The President of France does not think much of them. 

     I tend to agree with President Sarkozy, but I find the matter complicated.  On the one hand, there should be a right to free exercise of religion in any civilized country.  On the other hand, all people should be free of oppression, and there is clearly, to me anyway, an element of oppression in the requirement that women wear a burka.  (Our President doesn’t seem to think so, according to his speech in Cairo.)

     I wonder if the burka really is a religious requirement.  If it is, then why don’t all Muslim women wear it?  Many Muslim women that I have seen wear only a head scarf or other head covering that covers their hair but leaves their face exposed.  If women are not required under Islam to have their faces covered, then I think the French government, or any government, has the right to ban it in certain public spaces.

     On the other hand, even if it is not a religious requirement, if a woman chooses to wear a burka in public, then why should any state have the right to tell her not to? 

     Then again, are the women who wear burkas freely choosing to do so?  It is my understanding that they are required by their fathers and husbands to do it.  Of course, that brings me back to my earlier point about the state intervening to stop oppression. 

     If women really are choosing to wear the burka freely and cheerfully, I can still  think of some reasons that the burka could be a problem.  It makes it impossible to identify the person if she commits a crime or causes an accident.  It makes it impossible to verify her identity, if that is necessary.  A woman, or even a man, could hide behind a burka in order to get away with a crime.  I’m not suggesting that the kind of women who wear burkas are prone to commit crimes, but rather that the garment would be a very effective disguise.

     Once when I was in college, my friends and I walked into a convenience store wearing Halloween masks.  We were on our way to a Halloween party.  The man behind the counter almost came unglued.  He demanded that we remove the masks immediately, which we did.  It had not occurred to me that we looked as though we were about to hold up the store.  I have also been asked to remove my sunglasses upon entering a place of business for the same reason.  I think that the burka might present the same problem.

     What do you think about the burka, and what do you think the Western world should do about it?

What’s In a Title?

     I am sure that you heard about Senator Barbara Boxer’s scolding an Army Brigadier General for calling her “Ma’am” rather than “Senator.” 

     Is a member of the United States Senate so ignorant of military protocol that she does not realize that Ma’am is a title of respect used for a superior officer?

     Does she forget that she called Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice “Madam” during a hearing rather than “Madam Secretary”?  Maybe she thinks that she is entitled to a title but she is not obligated to use them for other people.

     Why did she not address him as “Brigadier General” in that same exchange?  If she believes in using titles, then she should be consistent.

     Does such a well-educated and well-traveled woman not realize that even the Queen of England is addressed as “Madam” or “Ma’am?  Does she think she ranks higher than a queen?

     I have always been distrustful of people who insist on being called by a certain title.  It seems to me that it shows a bit of insecurity on their part. 

     Besides we are in America.  We don’t have a noble class.  The only place where it is entirely necessary to insist on titles, or rather, ranks, is in the military, because military discipline requires it.  Otherwise, the use of titles is a courtesy that people should follow but that they should not be compelled to do.