North Pole Working Conditions: Exposed!

Call me a Scrooge if you like, but I feel compelled to ex-press in writing my displeasure, if not outright disgust, over a song that gets a good deal of favor-able attention during the holiday season, attention I believe is unwarranted.

You’ve undoubtedly heard the song. It’s called “Rudolph, The Red-Nosed Reindeer.”

In my opinion this dubious holiday favorite sends, especially to our innocent and impressionable children, a number of highly damaging messages. First of all, it singles out a member of a group because he was different, different in a way he apparently couldn’t help. Then it describes in graphic detail how he was rejected and boisterously ridiculed by other members of the group, a group employed by, of all people, Santa Claus!

I ask you, shouldn’t Old Saint Nick have been keeping a closer eye out for unacceptable behavior among his paid staff? After all, here is a man, or so we are told, who checks up on every child in the world to see if they’ve been good or bad, but then neglects to check on the day-to-day behavior of his own reindeer. Don’t employers have a moral and legal obligation to see to it that harassment in any form or guise never enters the workplace? I thought Santa was the head guy at the North Pole, the man ultimately responsible for controlling employee behavior there? If this song is true, it would appear that he’s not everything he’s cracked up to be.

And then, as if that wasn’t enough, when Santa called upon Rudolph to carry out a task none of the others were equipped to handle, suddenly Rudolph’s supercilious co-workers “loved him.” And the blatant hypocrisy didn’t end there. The song goes on to say that they made wildly effusive and insincere predictions about his future, some sappy remarks about how he was going to go “down in history.”

And why do you suppose the other reindeer had this sudden change of heart? Well let’s be candid. In all likelihood it was for no reason other than to save their cushy jobs, a job that required them to pull a sleigh just one night a year. They doubtless reversed their position simply because they didn’t want Santa to lay them off now that it was apparent that the whole miserable lot of them, with the exception of one, was lacking a vital all-weather night-flying component--a shiny red nose.

So now do you see why I object so strenuously to this mindless melody? All the deeper issues are never even touched upon, and in the end there’s this so-called happy ending. But in actuality there’s nothing happy about it. Everything is just left unresolved!

A dispassionate examination of the facts reveals, I think, a more likely and far darker outcome. Rudolph had been abused and traumatized for quite some time. He obviously had developed deep seated feelings of inadequacy. Quite likely he never felt worthy of the confidence Santa suddenly placed in him on that foggy Christmas Eve, or the fame it brought to him. If he wasn’t already drinking heavily, as his nose suggests he might have been, it is my guess that he ultimately turned to alcohol and died in obscurity.

But an even larger issue here is whether Santa Claus ever learned the vital lessons one must learn in order to be a good and capable employer, lessons like always making sure that employees who are different are never singled out and cruelly victimized by thoughtless co-workers.

Because if Santa failed to learn and implement those lessons, and we really have no way of knowing whether he did or didn’t, aren’t the doubts this song places in the minds of small children going to be deeply disturbing? Aren’t their tender little minds going to be needlessly tormented with nagging suspicions about the true nature and character of one of the world’s most beloved and venerable characters?

But hey, don’t get me wrong. I’m only trying to apply a little objectivity to this whole tragic and shameful affair.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Free Federal Money

The ability to acquire and dispense federal funds to their home state has become a power-ful advantage to congressional incumbents seeking re-election. We recently witnessed that first-hand right here in Nevada in the tightly contested senate race between Sharron Angle and incumbent Harry Reid.

Members of congress, if they wish to do so, can portray themselves as irreplaceable philanthropists and benefactors, indispensable conduits through which “free” federal money flows to their largely helpless and needy constituents. By playing upon our fears, these crafty politicians can lead us into believing that the world would come to a swift and dreadful end if they were not re-elected.

But let’s take a look at what “free” federal money consists of and what it is doing to us besides making false gods of some of our more wily and unscrupulous politicians.

Simply put, federal money is tax dollars combined with borrowed money. The borrowed portion comes principally from foreign countries, the most prominent being China. The tax portion comes for the most part from ordinary American citizens like you and me.

So what is our growing dependence on federal money doing to us? There actually are a number of things, but here’s one to consider: It is inexorably expanding the power of the federal government while diminishing the power of the state governments.

Think about it. Money is power. So when money generated in Nevada by Nevadans is taken out of Nevada and sent to Washington, only to come back several dollars short and with strings attached, who do you think is winning and who do you think is losing?

Perhaps it’s time Nevadans and Americans in general gave some serious thought to this country’s history. In the beginning there were 13 states. Representatives of those 13 states met together to form a federal government. That’s a key point to remember. I’ll repeat it: The states formed the federal government. It wasn’t the other way around.

So why have the states now become secondary entities, entities that must depend for their survival upon the “generosity” of the federal government and the money brokering skills of their most senior members of congress? Isn’t there something inherently wrong with this arrangement, an arrangement whereby the creature, the federal government, is steadily gaining control over its creators, the states?

If we’re going to get things back to the way they were intended to be in this country, we as individual citizens must clear the fog out of our heads and return to some fundamental principles, and I emphasize the word fundamental.

A few suggestions: If you’re not already one, become a responsible and productive citizen. Don’t expect the federal government to do anything for you that you can do for yourself, even if it will temporarily put a hardship on you. Don’t blame others for your problems. Live within your means, and in your every word and deed demonstrate to your children and grandchildren why that course of action ultimately will yield a greater degree of security for themselves and the nation as a whole than living recklessly will.

And most importantly, begin urging your state and local leaders to start saying no to federal dollars. They’re not worth what we’re exchanging for them: Our precious Constitutional rights and liberties.

Be advised that any and all attempts by the federal government to redistribute wealth in this country carry within them the additional side effect of redistributing power. If we want our system of government to continue having the vital checks and balances provided by the Constitution, we must at some point reverse this dangerous political trend.

The system that has evolved subtly over the past 6 or 7 decades is a degraded and degrading version of what the Founders gave us. Contrary to what some in Washington are telling us, there is nothing beneficial about an arrangement that places the states and their citizens in a position of dependency in relation to the federal government. And if this trend is permitted to continue, the 50 sovereign states soon will become nothing more than regional subdivisions of the federal government.

Then all the eggs, or I should say all the political power, will be in one basket, an idea that once was considered to be a bad one.

If you think it still is, please start speaking up!

The Hero of BB-36

Joseph K. Taussig, Jr. (U.S. Naval Academy, class of '41) received the Navy Cross for heroism on board USS Nevada (BB-36) at Pearl Harbor. He was perhaps best known as the officer of the deck aboard Nevada when Japanese planes attacked “Battleship Row” on 7 December 1941. Fourteen bombs hit Nevada that day; 43 people were killed and 118 wounded.

After sounding the alert on his ship, the 21-year-old ensign manned a starboard anti-aircraft gun and refused to leave his post after taking a hit to his left leg. In his own words, “I was directing fire at the outset of the attack when I don't know what hit me, something went completely through my thigh. They ordered a cot for me, and I just continued to control the gun batteries. Some enlisted men brought a stretcher and I stayed up there until the (ship's) whole structure caught fire. They brought me down through the fire. The Navy said I was decorated because I refused to leave my post.”

“This is a direct order,” the ensign said to BM1 Bob Norman, who was trying to carry him away to safety. “Leave me alone!” “I'm sorry sir,” replied Norman, “but this is one order I'm going to have to disobey.”

Facing a fire that severely damaged the ship, Taussig resisted but was forcefully carried below decks by his shipmates where he was treated for his injuries. Besides receiving the Navy Cross, the Navy's second highest award for valor following the Medal of Honor in precedence, Taussig was also awarded the Purple Heart.

He stayed in several hospitals until April 1946, when his left leg was amputated. He returned to active duty three days later. By the time he finally retired from active naval service in 1954 he was, at age 34, the youngest captain in the Navy.

Reprinted from www.navsource.org