Flagellation for Fun and Profit.

Why can't we all just be nice and love one another!

During his highly memorable but probably best forgotten Cairo speech, President Obama apologized to the world in general and Islam in particular for the grievous sins of the United States, all of which had occurred before He ascended to the presidency. Instead of intoning "mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa" he said "they have sinned, they have sinned, they have sinned most grievously." Most of the major media outlets hung on every utterance and disparaged as prejudiced, racist, bigoted Neanderthals those who disagreed. More recently, He came out four-square in favor of construction of a mosque-recreation center close to Ground Zero and then back tracked a smidgen. Even more recently, He pitted all of the power of His bully pulpit, possibly including the FBI, against the allegedly crazy and bigoted promise of a previously unknown small town fundamentalist preacher to fifty congregants to burn some Korans on September 11^th.

[T]he White House has been treating this lunatic as a greater threat to national security than Osama bin Laden.

The president himself went on TV to plead with him not to burn the books. And Gen. David Petraeus -- in a decidedly ill-advised move -- publicly warned that if Jones followed through, US troops would be put at risk.

Is the Reverend Mr. Jones a Lunatic? I don't know; it's difficult to tell these days. Is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who promotes the mosque, etc. as a gesture of religious tolerance and understanding a lunatic? I don't know. Do they both foam at the mouth when they go "Wuff, Wuff" (sort of rhymes with Rauf, Rauf)? Victor Davis Hanson has it right, as usual:

We are reaching the point where the damage done to America’s image by 50 book-burners is outweighed by the damage done by hypersensitivity on the part of the United States government, which hopes to assuage the hurt feelings of those abroad who equate that tiny number with our culture at large — often in an abjectly hypocritical fashion. We know where this leads — to endless efforts to micromanage all elements of American life to protect the sensitivities of those who, by act and deed, are far more intolerant of different religions and cultures.

In any event, good marketing fellas, with special honors to the Reverend Mr. Jones.

With only a threat to burn a Koran, he became a household name across the world and never had to strike a match. He saw an effigy of himself, wrapped in an American flag, burned by rioters in Afghanistan, shouting "death to the Christians." Every newspaper, every network scrambled for face time with him.

In any event, they went hog-wild. What's the big deal with self-flagellation, or in the case of President Obama, flagellation of others? Has His rejection of American Exceptionalism done so little harm to the country that it is now necessary to eliminate or turn it upside-down?

Of course Muslims in the United States have the same freedoms of religion and of speech as do others in the United States, and much more such freedoms than do non-Muslims (and apparently Muslims) in Islamic countries. That has not been seriously questioned. Evidently however, those who think the so called Ground Zero Mosque should be built have more freedom of speech than do those who think otherwise, and those who promise to burn some Korans are viewed as demanding to exercise more freedom of speech than those who burn the United States flag to protest some real or imagined grievance. America is becoming truly exceptional, but in ways which are not encouraging. By cowering in the face of violent outrage by Islamists (I generally use this term when referring to radical Muslims), on the apparent theory that if we don't cower they will become even more antagonistic than has become customary, she is becoming exceptionally ridiculous and weak. Does anyone in his right mind think that if The Reverend Mr. Jones and the others who have promised to light their matches all actually put them away the easily offended would become less antagonistic and more tolerant? Self delusion is a poor basis for governance.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad plays the fiddle, calls it all a Zionist plot and we dance. He may, unfortunately, be correct in his final analysis.

"The Zionists and their supporters are on the path to collapse and decline and such desperate actions will not save them, but will accelerate their fall and annihilation," the president said during a meeting between Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian officials in Tehran.

Under the Constitution, freedom of speech has traditionally meant (with unfortunately increasing exceptions) that there can be no official prior restraint by the government of offensive but non-obscene speech, no matter how offensive some might find the thoughts expressed. Promising to burn, stone or lash the Koran is not "obscene," except perhaps in the view of those who find it offensive, and merely offensive is not "obscene" under any definition with which I am familiar. President Obama, officials of his administration and the media are free to condemn such speech and to praise the proposed mosque construction close to Ground Zero but should not claim to represent the United States in doing so.

There are many in the Islamist world who demand that the United States government prohibit the burning of Korans and all other public slights to their religion. They apparently think that the government has the power to do so and must exercise it in the name of human rights. The United States government has no such power and, under the Constitution, can't. The sooner they learn this the better for us all. This is doubtless a very difficult concept to grasp, particularly for those who live privileged lives under governments of substantially unlimited power and even for those who don't have that privilege but nevertheless favor the concept; for the pastor in Florida and others to cave into demands for conformity with the will of the administration as he ultimately appears to have done is not a good teaching point. Instead, it leads to this sort of nonsense:

Following the uproar over the threatened burning of the Quran by a small Florida church, a leading international Islamic body said Thursday that the United Nations should outlaw “all forms of offense against religions.”

* * * * *

“The Florida Dove World Outreach Center Church’s plan to burn copies of the Holy Quran on September 11 … requires immediate action to outlaw all acts of defamation of religions and religious sanctities,” the Morocco-based Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) said in a communique.

“It is a blot on humanity that such discriminatory attack against Islam and Islamic holy sites is continuing in the absence of deterrent legal measures, local and international.”

ISESCO, an arm of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), called on the U.N. “to issue an international law criminalizing all forms of offense against religions under any circumstances.”

* * * * *

ISESCO’s call was an expected opening salvo in a fresh push by the OIC to use both the Quran-burning threat and the Manhattan mosque dispute to move forward its decade-old campaign to get the U.N. to outlaw what it calls “religious defamation” worldwide.

The OIC argues that legal deterrents are necessary in the light of instances of “Islamophobia” which it says have increased significantly since 9/11 [strange, that]. OIC publications use the label “Islamophobia” to cover a range of incidents and trends, from anti-Muslim graffiti to criticism of human rights abuses in Islamic states [of which there have clearly been none] to counter-terrorism profiling [some of which might be a good idea].

Why am I reminded of Al Capp's SWINE (Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything)?

Even in the highly unlikely event that this prohibition would apply to Islamist practices "offensive" to Christianity, Judaism and other non-Islamist religions, it would take far better orators than President Obama and TOTUS to get such a monster ratified and a far better lawyer than Attorney General Holder to find a way to read it as compliant with the United States Constitution, under which ratified treaties are the equivalent to statutes and must therefore be compliant with the Constitution.

Me? I am burning barbecuing a nice pork loin. It's yummier than a musty old Koran and don't worry, our dogs will get their fair shares.

Stupidity is Constitutional.

Let's have a Do Something Stupid Day to celebrate our rights!

Reading the United States Constitution would reveal no use of the words "idiotic," "stupid" or even "obdurate" and there are no laws of which I am aware prohibiting per se all conduct which a reasonable person – such as me – would consider in any of those categories. Frying bacon in the nude even in the privacy of one's kitchen is a stupid thing to do; grease splatters and can hurt. Isn't it worth a bit of discomfort to celebrate our Constitutional rights? Eating McDonalds double whopper cheeseburgers five times a day for years would, I think, be stupid. Even First Lady Obama seems to agree so I must be right (or wrong, for the same reason). Candidly, I think eating even one just occasionally is not a great idea, but that's just me. Go eat a dozen for the Constitution, like 'em or not. It's our right!

Sometimes, we lose sight of the differences between unconstitutional, unlawful and stupid. There are lots of folks who think that building a mega mosque adjacent to Ground Zero (no reference to President Obama intended, of course) would be stupid, particularly if the objective is to promote freedom of religion and tolerance in the United States. Obdurate? That too. I don't accept for a moment the thesis that promotion of freedom of religion and tolerance (ubiquitous, of course, in Islamic countries) have anything to do with the proposed construction, but let's assume for the sake of argument that that's why it is being insisted upon.

Those who view it as stupid (and I do, along with some Muslims), and prize freedom of speech (as I also do) can object. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said

This is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery. [The Mosque] is going to be used around the world, especially in Islamic media. From the ashes of this destruction comes the flourishing of Islam and I think that is just the wrong message. It is not good for America or for Muslims…We are Americans who happen to be Muslims, not Muslims who happen to be Americans.

From sunup to sundown Muslims are fasting and working on putting our needs tertiary to our God and our country, not what we need. They are abandoning these principles and saying, ‘Well, this is what we need and we are victims if you don’t let us do this. And we can do it, so we are going to.’ I think that is un-Islamic.

Those who think freedom of religion and tolerance should be promoted by building the mosque there doubtless support opposition to it on an analogous basis. Right? Sure they do. I guess.

An analogy can be made to burning the United States Flag to protest United States policies viewed by the burners as perverse. We have learned from the Supreme Court that doing so is a constitutional right; it's freedom of speech in action. As a young Boy Scout centuries ago, I learned that the only suitable way to dispose of a tattered and worn United States Flag ia to burn it, in a respectful manner. It would be stupid and maybe even unlawful to do that in a fireworks stand. If some idiot wants to burn a flag (for whatever reason) next to his own remote collection of fireworks, that's his problem and not mine. Would burning a United States Flag to protest the inhumane treatment of naugas when they are slaughtered for their precious hides be stupid? I think so. Would it make the people who like their Naugahyde^® covered sofas so ashamed of their dastardly ways that they would cease using them? Seems rather unlikely. It might get a bit of attention for a few "Save the Nauga" advocates and give them some self respect, but they probably have very little and need some.

In these days of world peace, prosperity, full employment and resultant boredom, we all need wholesome and meaningful recreation. Can't be bothered with a vacation in sunny Spain or Martha's Vineyard? Doing something lawful and totally stupid to promote the United States Constitution could be lots of fun. Here are some suggestions:START BLOCKQUOTE]

Have a Silly Walk Day;

Write an inane article – I just did;

Protest tornadoes and demand good weather;

Stone some manikins (your own, of course) since they would probably commit adultery if they could (Some insensitive wag wrote that in Arabia, women get stoned when they commit adultery; in the U.K., women commit adultery when they get stoned);

Comment seriously on and psychoanalyze this article – I was inspired to write it by another inane article (obviously, not here) and some of the comments associated with it.[END BLOCKQUOTE]

That's just a start; the possibilities are endless. Be creative! Do something. But, as Uncle Jay says, "only appropriate behavior."

Homosexuality, Marriage and Religion

According to recent "lies, damn lies or statistics" I read somewhere, most people now wish Proposition 8 had never passed. Some of them probably think that California has more important stuff to worry about – unemployment, approaching bankruptcy and/or foreclosure, undocumented democrats aliens arriving by the truckload from Arizona to be fed, housed and provided medical care and the like at taxpayer expense from an eroding tax base. The gang populations of California, already substantial, may be augmented. Some folks may now view trying to keep homosexuals from marrying each other as "like, so yesterday" and had rather go play with their hula hoops, enjoy their recreational drugs and tend to the needs of their pet rocks; or whatever. It seems unlikely that Californians have suffered physical, economic or other substantial harm as a result of the homosexual marriages which have already taken place; few heterosexual marriages have likely been destroyed because of them and it seems unlikely that heterosexuals who were heretofore inclined to marry will change their minds. I think it would have been better had the federal court case never got started, because in its present posture it seems likely to end in frustration for those, like me, who think the Tenth Amendment is and should remain viable; the Proposition 8 case may leave it in an intensive care ward in some underfunded and understaffed public hospital at the mercy of ObamaCare. Battles should be chosen wisely and resources should be conserved for the most important fights; there are lots of them.

Judge Walker's August 4 decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger has come under vigorous attack from many but not all conservatives and occasionally even stronger attack from some but hardly all on the religious right. It has been praised to the heavens by many on the left, but the reception from gay rights advocates has not been consistently favorable. For example, Michael Dorf wrote

[START BLOCKQUOTE]The prospect of a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage fills members of the gay-rights advocacy community (of which I am at least a fellow traveler if not a full-fledged participant) with both hope and dread. By denying a right to same-sex marriage, the Justices could set the cause back a decade or more. And paradoxically, even by recognizing a right to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court could harm the movement, because such a ruling could spark a backlash. [END BLOCKQUOTE]

I have a sense that the case was poorly handled by the Proposition 8 proponents; the refusal of Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown to support Proposition 8 probably hurt the proponents' chances. If states have the authority to define marriage based on traditional values, Judge Walker could probably have received better assistance from the Proposition 8 proponents than he did.

When Judge Walker issued his August 4 decision, he imposed a temporary stay on its implementation. On August 7, the governor and attorney general asked Judge Walker to terminate the stay. The proponents of Proposition 8 asked that the stay remain in effect pending appeal. On August 12, Judge Walker ruled, keeping the stay in effect only until August 18 to give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to rule on a stay sought there. He indicated that since the State of California had opposed its extension, the proponents of Proposition face no apparent harm from its denial and probably have no legal basis for seeking one. "Both plaintiffs and the state defendants have disavowed the harms identified by proponents." The question of a stay and other matters will be before the Ninth Circuit and whatever it says may well tip its hand as to how it will ultimately rule on the merits of the appeal. Be that as it may, there are some perhaps larger issues to consider.

In writing my August 5 article on Judge Walker's decision, I wore my attorney hat and tried to present legal analysis without advocacy. For this article, I have removed my hat.

I strongly favor states' rights and think that Article 10 of the Constitution has long been improperly curtailed. Nevertheless, states also seem occasionally to stick their noses where they do not belong and multiple county and municipal governments occasionally do the same thing. The Federal Government, while bigger and often more overbearing, has no monopoly.

Religion is generally a force for good in the United States. That I don't have any doesn't bother me and should not be a matter of concern for others either; as far as I am aware, it isn't. Those who, for religious or other reasons, want to pray, to argue that life begins at the moment of conception or that homosexual marriage is sinful have every right to do so. When advocating and voting on issues, they have every right to do so in accordance with their beliefs. My views on the rationality or irrationality of their beliefs don't matter and shouldn't; neither should the views of a judge. Freedom of religion is also good, provided that its exercise does not impinge upon my rights or those of others; I would not appreciate someone holding a prayer vigil or, for that matter, displaying an "Elvis Lives!" sign while trespassing on my front lawn or throwing holy water or anything else at me as I walk down a public sidewalk; I have experienced nothing of the sort. Freedom from religion is also good, provided that it does not impinge unduly upon the rights of those who desire to be religious. Those who don't want to celebrate Christmas need not do so but have no business preventing others. I don't object to Christmas trees, reasonably non-denominational voluntary prayer or Christmas carols in public schools, provided that nobody who does not desire to participate is pressured to do so on pain of penalty or even expressions of disapproval by teachers and other school officials. If other students want to express verbal disapproval of non-participating students, tough; it's a part of life and they had better become accustomed to that sort of thing. Kids and even alleged adults hatefully express public disapproval for all sorts of lawful things which do not harm them or others – wearing unfashionable shoes, outdated hairstyles and the like. There was lots of disgusting campaign commentary about Governor Palin. The "easily offended" on all sides of various issues are themselves generally offensive. Remember Al Cap's SWINE – Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything? They have not disappeared; some of them have just aged ungracefully.

This leads back to the issue of homosexual marriage. Rather, it leads to the larger issue of government approved marriage in general. Back in the "good old days" (think old fashioned dentistry) which some other old farts may recall, when most husbands worked to provide for their families and most wives stayed at home to bake cookies, clean house and care for the kids, there were arguably valid reasons for limited government oversight of marriage. Stay-at-home wives with no independent means of support and neither job opportunities nor experience needed security; divorce proceedings or their prospect provided at least some. That beats welfare, one of the few alternatives. The situation has changed, for better or worse.

The only current basis for governmental intervention in marriage which seems to make sense is that governments provide many benefits to, and impose a few penalties on, those who are married in ways of which governments approve. The benefits, however marriage may be officially defined, may well promote marriage. However, they also promote divorce since only officially married people can obtain divorces and many of them do.

When governments have financial interests in marriage, they are likely to act according to their views of marriage or at least whatever views the politicians currently in power deem politically expedient. Governor Schwarzenegger was for Proposition 8 before he was against it. And there lies a problem. A similar problem exists in federal funding for education. To the extent that the federal government holds the purse strings, it controls what is taught and how it is taught. The Tenth Amendment is not significantly implicated in this sort of federal intervention because the states accept the money and the accompanying conditions voluntarily. As with most drugs, addiction follows.

Reverting to Judge Walker's California Proposition 8 decision, it revolved about two essential but dubious findings. First, Proposition 8 was claimed to have passed because of animosity toward homosexuals. I suspect the proponents of Proposition 8 did not do a very good job of challenging the "facts" behind this finding. The notion itself is rather strange; sociologists can from opinions on all sorts of matters and if they have appropriate credentials their opinions are treated as "expert" opinions, similar to testimony as to facts, and are entitled to some weight. Only "expert opinions" count. I may have a strong opinion about the superior intelligence of Akita pups compared to Border Collie pups. My opinion would not be admissible in court, even if highly relevant to a contested issue of relative pup intelligence, because I am not an expert in such matters. Expert opinions aside, however, actually knowing what motivates people to vote one way or another is impossible, just as it is impossible to know whether a particular person, for example a judge, is actuated by chronic constipation or particular empathy toward some group of people. Even if specific Californians testified under oath that they voted for Proposition 8 because of hatred for homosexuals, there is no apparent reason to impute their hatred to others. Even if there were, so what? Some people probably voted for Senator Obama because they hated President Bush passionately and transferred their hatred to the Republican presidential nominee. Lots of hate for Governor Palin was also evident. So? Even a conclusive showing that sufficient numbers voted for President Obama on the basis of hatred to cause his election would not be a valid basis for invalidating it. Generally, the personal motivations of voters have no bearing on the legitimacy of elections and people are free to vote as they wish. Handsome and pretty candidates (other than certain governors of Alaska) probably have an advantage over hideous candidates and, like it or not, race matters, sometimes more than substantive issues.

Second, Judge Walker found that homosexuals who are denied the "right" to marry each other are thereby stigmatized and their committed relationships lack societal respect. That may be true; however, legal recognition of homosexual marriage seems unlikely to make a difference.

If people want to consider themselves and to be considered by others "married," they have some pretty good alternative options. Years ago, my wife (a woman) and I (a man) were married twice, to each other, over a period of several months. Our first marriage was conducted with the benefit of a marriage license in Annapolis, Maryland by a delightful Anglican priest. He expressed no problem with our requested modifications to the Book of Common Prayer marriage ceremony to delete religious references. Lots of our friends, some religious and some not, attended and the ceremony was followed by a big party. My wife's family and many of her old friends live in California, so we had an unofficial second "marriage" ceremony there later – using the same modified ceremony but with no California marriage license because we were already married. A family friend who was a Protestant chaplain at Stamford University presided. It was also a great ceremony, also followed by a big party.

It seems quite likely that many clergymen and others would be willing to conduct unofficial religious, quasi-religious or non-religious ceremonies for homosexual couples, without the benefit of a marriage license, and perhaps even sneak in such words as "I now pronounce you married." ("I now pronounce you man and wife" could be a tad awkward.) I can think of no reason why homosexual couples who want them can't have such celebrations and consider themselves "married." Nor can I think of any reason why friends and colleagues who would refuse to honor their unofficial mutual commitment would honor a state approved homosexual marriage ceremony instead. Some churches would likely consider the couple to be "living in sin" in either event and refuse them various sacraments; that's an important part of religious freedom.

An unofficial ceremony would currently have no legal effect, but so what? The various legal incidents of marriage (aside from government benefits and penalties and the ability to obtain a divorce) could be taken care of by contracts and wills; any interactions between the happy couple and official busy-bodies could be dealt with, as California has done, by conferring the same rights on those in civil unions as upon those who are married. The federal tax consequences of official marriage may (or may not) be heading toward the rocks, since a federal district judge in Gill v. OPM recently found substantial constitutional problems with federal reliance on the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. [START BLOCKQUOTE.

[T]his court is convinced that "there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship" between DOMA and a legitimate government objective. DOMA, therefore, violates core constitutional principles of equal protection.[END BLOCKQUOTE]

The same argument could be made about long term committed but unofficial homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Their recognition for tax and other governmental purposes might well create administrative chaos, but there is so much of that already that the addition would hardly be noticed. These questions may be answered, by the Congress if not by the Supreme Court, one of these fine days. Otherwise, our unelected and unaccountable "civil servants" will probably have to try to answer them -- for tax, social security, veterans' benefits ad infinitum.

The government is a bloated, intrusive and obnoxious busy-body. Even sweet, considerate and kind nannies, like Mary Poppins, aren't so intrusive. Absent very compelling reasons, governments should leave people alone to conduct their own affairs (interpret "affairs" as you will). Are these Utopian fantasies? Probably, but at least I can have and express them.

Reminiscences of a Senescent Former JAG officer

When I went away to college in 1959, I joined the Army ROTC because I was concerned about the probability of being drafted and preferred to serve eventually as an officer rather than as an enlisted man. I had no particular love of the army, even though having lived for years in the Washington, D.C. suburbs had had many military officers as neighbors.

I liked and respected the officer and enlisted ROTC cadre, but hated most of the rest: close order drill, marching around and that sort of soldier stuff once a week because I could see no point to it. I undestand it now, but that's for another article preferably written by someone who understands initial military training far better than I do.

Upon graduation in 1963, I was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Ordnance Corps but got a postponement of call to active duty to attend law school. Three months after graduation from law school in 1966, I was called to active duty as a first lieutenant in the JAG corps (credited with three years of service for pay purposes, which was nice); since the Army was going to start bringing in new JAG officers as captains, those of us already in were promoted to captain so that we would have earlier dates of rank than the newbies.

JAG school was separated from my old law school in Charlottesville, Virginia only by a parking lot, so being there was sort of like being at home. Following JAG school, I was assigned to the Eighth U.S. Army/United Nations Command headquarters in Seoul, Korea. After a few months, I was able to prevail upon the staff judge advocate, Colonel M, reluctantly to transfer me down the hall in the same building to the Eighth Army Support Command, which exercised general court martial jurisdiction over all rear echelon troops; I wanted experience in the criminal justice area and wasn't going to get it where I was. He eventually obliged, and I was first assigned to prosecute general courts martial and, once I seemed competent, to defend. That was army policy and a very good one. I am unaware of any comparable policy in the civilian criminal system.

After several months, the Support Command deputy staff judge advocate (a major's slot, held by a senior captain) position became vacant because the deputy SJA had been caught in a compromising situation with a young Korean enlisted man in an hotel room and was sent back to the United States within a very few days. When I was told by some of my fellow officers that I was the next senior captain and very likely to succeed him, I was not happy. We all considered the SJA to be a bit of a jerk, referred to by most of us out of his hearing as a pig f****er; he and I had had no problems, and that day I became his deputy and the chief of military justice. My office was moved to another adjoining his, and the door between our offices was kept open at all times. I immediately ceased to refer to him as a pig f****er or otherwise disrespectfully even in private because that could have destabilized our short chain of command. Even as a very junior officer, I knew that much.

We got along very well even on one occasion when a captain I had earlier assigned to prosecute or defend (I don't remember which) a general court martial emerged shortly before the start of the trial from LTC M's office nearly in tears (literally), having been chewed out mercilessly for something. I told LTC M that what he had done was wrong -- sending someone still close to tears to prosecute or defend a general court martial was simply stupid -- explained why, and asked that he consult me before doing anything similar to any of the officers for whom I had responsibility. He said that had not been aware of the court martial, apologized and promised to consult me in the future. That greatly increased my respect for him and probably for the army in general.

With no memorable exception, every army officer with whom I came in official contact was a good and honorable gentleman. A full colonel, the staff judge advocate for whom I first worked during my initial assignment at Eighth Army, was one of the best. Soon after I arrived in Korea, I became aware that a pittance (maybe $30 per month) was being deducted from my pay (about $800 per month) for extra rations and service at the officers' field ration mess. We were not required to eat there, and there were several officers' clubs on post where the food was better and at which I preferred to eat. I discovered that the deductions were required by an Eighth Army regulation and, after a bit of research, decided that it was unlawfully in violation of Army regulations, which permitted such deductions only in forward areas, such as the division areas well to the north of Seoul. I presented my case to Col. F, the SJA, who had only months previously given his blessing to the Eighth Army regulation. He agreed that I was right and that his advice had been wrong. He stood up for me, and resisted a suggestion that I be transferred to one of the divisions; the regulation was changed. For a colonel, the legal advisor to the commanding general, to support a lowly captain in this situation required tremendous integrity and the respect I already had for him increased.

Eventually, I rotated to a new assignment at the Government Appellate Division near Washington, D.C. and worked for another great officer, LTC R. Along with a dozen or so other JAG officers, I wrote briefs supporting the government in general courts martial appeals and argued many cases before the Board of Review (a panel of senior Army JAG officers) and also before the civilian Court of Military Appeals. This work gave me far better appellate experience than I would have had as a young attorney in civilian practice. I enjoyed it a lot.

I was directed to draft a brief seeking Supreme Court reconsideration of its then new O'Callahan decision, voiding court martial jurisdiction over military personnel in the United States for civilian type offense committed off post and while off duty. It was, in my opinion, a poorly reasoned decision (Justices Harlan, Stewart and White had dissented from the majority opinion) and, aside from its other infirmities, one which would likely subject soldiers at some bases in the United States to criminal justice systems far inferior to that of the military; this was in in 1969 and Jim Crow was not then a only device used to protect crops from crows. The decision was ultimately made the Judge Advocate General not to seek reconsideration, which I considered wrong headed but it obviously was not my decision to make.

The UCMJ was modified in 1968 to provide for special courts martial resembling to the extent possible general courts martial. When the new system began to go into effect I asked LTC R. whether he would consider an application for the new judges' course at the JAG school and subsequent assignment as a special court martial military judge. We were riding back from the Pentagon in a bus, and the conversation was quite informal. He agreed, and it happened. After completion of the rather thorough course, I was assigned as the full time special martial military judge for Japan and Korea. Shortly thereafter, LTC R (soon thereafter a full colonel, as I recall) was assigned as the SJA at I Corps, in Korea; to the extent that a captain and full colonel can be become friends, we did.

I was carried on the morning report at Department of the Army in Washington and for all practical purposes had no boss. There were also some part time special court martial military judges, who had full time assignments in other capacities.

During my one year tour of duty, I presided over more than three hundred special courts martial, all but one in Korea. Since it was necessary for me to travel throughout the entire country, I was given the transportation priority of a full colonel and whenever it was necessary, frequently, to travel a significant distance, went by chopper or fixed wing aircraft.

With the then recent modifications to the UCMJ, an accused had a choice of trial by judge alone or by a presiding judge and a panel of officers (or, in the case of an enlisted man if he requested, including some enlisted men). After the first few trials with panels, most of my cases were tried by judge alone, which meant that I had to decide on guilt or innocence and, if the former, to impose sentence. I thought it was a good and fair system; I was and remain very proud of it and to have been a part of it.

Most of the time, defense counsel were JAG officers. On rare occasions a non-JAG attorney served as defense counsel at the request of the accused. Most were competent but a very few were not. Once, I presided over a case involving a guilty plea by an enlisted man, probably a corporal (E-4) or specialist (also E-4). He had been charged with disobedience of an order from a superior non-commissioned officer to get out of bed and stand formation. As required, I questioned him to determine the provenance of his plea of guilty. He stated that he had been ordered by an Army physician to remain in bed due to a broken or fractured bone in his leg. I rejected the guilty plea and we proceeded to trial. Based on his testimony and that of the physician, I found him not guilty; it was not a question of reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he was patently innocent. I also told defense counsel what I though of his competence. That was a very rare situation, and I had no other resembling it.

A few months before my obligatory four year term of active duty ended, I found myself on the list for promotion to major. Promotions had slowed down a bit by then, but had I sought to remain on active duty and perhaps asked for a regular army commission (I was a reserve officer) I would likely have been promoted within six months or so.

I didn't and sometimes wish that I had. Looking back, a far easier process than looking forward, service in the military was probably the most professionally rewarding part of my legal career and I developed a higher regard for the military justice system than for the civilian legal system in general; it persists. Had I remained in the army, my chances of becoming a full colonel would have been pretty good; I would never have become the Judge Advocate General, then a Major General's slot but now a Lieutenant General's slot, but a brigadier general's slot would at least have been possible.

It might have turned out badly or well and I shall never know. However, I wish that more young lawyers would consider military service as a career, for at least long enough to make an informed decision on whether it suits them. Many who reject the notion out of hand without exploring it should think further; I wish they would.

Oil is not the only mess in the Gulf of Mexico

Based on the various media accounts I've read it's a mess, reminiscent of Robert Heinlein's little ditty,

When in danger and in doubt
Run in circles, scream and shout!

The danger and the doubt are certainly present -- probably as much of the latter as of the former, and the screaming and shouting are abundant. It seems as though an analogy to elephant matings is appropriate: lots of stomping of feet and roaring, everything done at a high level, with results, maybe, in eleven months.

While the stomping and shouting are going on at all levels, high and low, numerous foreign offers of assistance are being "considered" and multiple bureaucracies are having red tape parties. Meanwhile, tropical depression - tropical storm - tropical depression - tropical storm and maybe moderate hurricane Alex with maximum forecast winds of up to eighty-five knots may or may not be getting ready to do mischief with the oil recovery measures; unlike responses to the oil "spill," Alex is forecast to become better organized before June 30^th. A hurricane watch has been issued for Baffin Bay, Texas, which means that storm force winds may hit there within the next forty-eight hours. Lesser winds of gale force accompanied by high seas may strike the oily areas. If that happens, or becomes likely, whatever oil recovery steps are now in progress will be seriously disrupted for up to two weeks. Predictions of events to come in more than a day or two are useful but far from perfect. The official track guidance, provided by the multiple computer models, recently shifted a bit to the north; it is thought to be of below average confidence.

Various proposals have been made, many of them fitting into a psychiatrist friend's classification of lunatics into three groups -- sad, mad and bad. Others appear to be rational and might even work were somebody actually in charge. According to U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor -- a Democrat from Mississippi,

It’s criminal what’s going on out there," Taylor said minutes later. "This doesn’t have to happen.”

A scientist onboard, Mike Carron with the Northern Gulf Institute, said with this scenario, there will be oil on the beaches of the mainland.

“There’s oil in the Sound and there was no skimming,” Carron said. “No coordinated effort.”

Taylor said it was a good thing he didn’t have a mic in the helicopter, because he might have said some things he didn’t want his children to hear.

“They’re paying all these boats to run around like headless chickens,” Taylor said, as reporters gathered to hear his assessment of the Sound.

His frustration is understandable. The Taiwanese owned oil tanker - skimmer A Whale, reported to be the world's largest, departed port in Norfolk Virginia on June 25 and should be in the area soon; maybe she will receive the authorization needed to help and a waiver of the Jones Act; or maybe but probably not. There have been many offers of assistance from other countries, and most of them remain "under consideration."

Oil skimmers are not "good enough" because they suck in very oily water, separate most but not all of the oil and discharge a very little of it back into the sea. Perfection is sometimes the worst enemy of the merely excellent.

Is all of this the fault of President Obama? Of course not. He didn't personally cause the BP oil rig to explode and sink, and apparent mismanagement by BP is largely to blame. It would have been in BP's best interest not to cut corners and thereby to create the mess. BP is paying a big price as are its stockholders and employees. BP may well face bankruptcy. Tough.

The highest price is being and will be paid by the folks living in the Gulf area and the environment in which they live and from which many of them will have great difficulty, perhaps for years, in earning a living. The psychological damage is likely also to be great.

To the extent that President Obama is to blame, it is for the abysmal lack of coordination coming from the executive branch of the Federal Government, of which he has now been the chief executive officer for seventeen months; we are now more than two months into the aftermath of the oil "spill." There needs to be coordination and the responsibility for it can't be delegated to various federal agencies with different agendas by a CEO who has little clue what's happening or what needs to be done about it. During World War II, Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt were far more aware of what was happening. They both, and Prime Minister Churchill in particular, took a far more lively interest. It would not be reasonable to expect President Obama, with no executive experience and far less experience with oil "spills" than Prime Minister Churchill had with the realities of war, to come even close. Still, if President Obama is as intelligent as has been proclaimed he should bring his intellect into focus on this problem and direct his minions to lead, follow or at least to get out of the way. There are big problems and small problems, and a competent CEO should be capable of figuring out which is which and providing useful guidance in dealing with the big ones. The three most important qualities are focus, focus and focus and President Obama has thus far demonstrated not even one of them. That's a major part of the job he fought so effectively to get. Having got it, he should do it. If that helps him to keep it, so be it. Keeping it, however, should not be his principal focus.

Dogs, Horses, Humans and other Animals

We currently have four dogs, six horses and one cat. Many of us have had animals as pets, yet I wonder whether and to what extent we know them. All are very different, among species, within their respective species and even within breeds. However, they neither lie nor conceal their emotions; perhaps they don't know how, and that's probably a good thing. There are plenty of people who do that exceptionally well. I have learned more from our animals than they have from me.

Temple Grandin, who has high-functioning autism, earned her Ph.D. degree in animal science at the University of Illinois. She is now a professor of animal science at Colorado State University. One of her books, Animals in Transition, makes, well I think, the point that animals are generally autistic and "can't see the forest for the trees;" they focus on detail and don't merge them into a general picture.

That's the big difference between animals and people, and also between autistic people and nonautistic people. Animals and autistic people don't see their ideas of things; they see the actual things themselves. We see the details that make up the world, while normal people blur all those details together into their general concept of the world.

Here is a video of a twenty minute talk on autism. Ms. Grandin, with the help of her own autism, has done quite a lot of work making slaughter houses more humane by such "simple" things as looking at details – shadows and beams of sunlight most of us don't notice – seeing them as cows do, and recommending fixes. In 2004, she won PETA's "Proggy" award, in the "visionary" category. Her

improvements to animal-handling systems found in slaughterhouses have decreased the amount of fear and pain that animals experience in their final hours, and she is widely considered the world's leading expert on the welfare of cattle and pigs.

Ms. Grandin's Animals in Transition is well worth reading, and I won't even try to summarize it here; rather, I'll hit only what I consider the high points. She discusses research tending to show that many animals have their own language systems; prairie dogs, for example, have been found to communicate using nouns, verbs and adjectives. A researcher found evidence that the prairie dogs are not born knowing the various calls but instead learn them from other members of their colonies; the different colonies have different dialects.

Some animals resemble "idiot savants," now more often referred to as autistic savants, who have specialties; they are geniuses in some things – card counting, spouting off lists of prime numbers, being able to tell the day on which one was born when told the date – but don't measure up in others. The things which some dogs, autistic savants in a way, can uniquely do are very helpful to humans. There are seeing eye dogs and there are even seizure alert dogs; the latter have been trained to recognize seizures and to help when they happen.

The dog might be trained to lie on top of the person so he doesn't hurt himself, or bring the person his medicine or the telephone. These are all standard helpful behaviors any dog can be trained to perform.

Some few of them however, perhaps ten percent, have learned on their own to predict seizures. How they do it is unknown, and it seems unlikely that any human can detect signs of a seizure half an hour or so in the future visually, by sounds or smells. Yet, some dogs have learned how to do it and to warn their masters of what is coming.

Ms. Grandin makes a good case for the thesis that some animals use musical language, rejecting the automatic "no way" some researchers have come up with.

It's time to start thinking about animals as capable and communicative beings. It's also time to stop making assumptions. Animal researchers take a lot for granted : "animals don't have language," "animals don't have psychological self-awareness" – you find blanket assertions like this sprinkled through the research literature. But the truth is, we don't know what animals can't do any better than than we know what they can do. It's hard to prove a negative, and proving negatives shouldn't be the focus.

Ms. Grandin also notes some research studies indicating that humans and wolves may have evolved together, developing symbiotic relationships.

Maybe the most amazing new finding is that wolves didn't just teach us a lot of useful new behaviors. Wolves probably also changed the structure of our brains. Fossil records show that that whenever a species becomes domesticated its brain gets smaller. . . . This probably happened because once humans started to take care of these animals, they no longer needed various brain functions in order to survive. I don't know what functions they lost, but I do know all domestic animals have reduced fear and anxiety compared to wild animals.

Now archaeologists have discovered that 10,000 years ago, just at the point when humans began to give their dogs formal burials, the human brain began to shrink, too. It shrank by ten percent, just like the dog's brain. And what's interesting is what part of the human brain shrank. In all of the domestic animals, the forebrain which holds the frontal lobes, and the corpus callosum, which is the connecting tissue between the two sides of the brain, shrank. But in humans it was the midbrain, which handles emotions and sensory data, and the olefactory bulbs, which handle smell, that got smaller while the corpus callosum and the forebrain stayed pretty much the same. Dog brains and human brains specialized: humans took over the planning and organizing tasks, and dogs took over the sensory tasks. Dogs and people coevolved and became even better partners, allies, and friends.

Is this all abject nonsense based on cooked data and other fantasy? I don't know, but I do know that it fits well with my own perceptions of horses and dogs.

Our dogs: Sunshine, an Akita, is the half sister of an Akita bitch whom my wife and I loved dearly, Shadow, so named because she tried to follow us everywhere. Shadow had a mind of her own and was the most intelligent dog I have ever known. She lived up to the Akita reputation.

Their devotion is unquestionable when the bonding is strong; their intelligence is remarkable, and each of you with an Akita living in your home know they have a marvelous sense of humor and fun. They are sensitive and intuitive to their families, seeming to read one's mind.

The quote provided above is from a heart-rending story about a young Akita named Kuma, whose master had died; he very much wanted to join him and finally managed to do so. The Akita beed originate in the Akita Prefecture in the mountains of northern Japan. The link provides a short history of the Akita breed, including Hachi-Ko, one of the most revered Akitas of all time.

He was born in 1923 and was owned by Professor Eizaburo Ueno of Tokyo. Professor Ueno lived near the Shibuya Train Station in a suburb of the city and commuted to work every day on the train. Hachi-Ko accompanied his master to and from the station each day.

On May 25, 1925, when the dog was 18 months old, he waited for his master's arrival on the four o'clock train. But he waited in vain; Professor Ueno had suffered a fatal stroke at work. Hachi-Ko continued to wait for his master's return. He traveled to and from the station each day for the next nine years. He allowed the professor's relatives to care for him, but he never gave up the vigil at the station for his master. His vigil became world renowned, and shortly after his death, a bronze statue was erected at the train station in his honor. Then, in 1931, The Akita was officially declared a Japanese Natural Monument.

During the Second World War, most Akitas died; there was insufficient food, and many were slaughtered for their pelts, much prized for officers' great coats. There were only a dozen or so left at the end of the war. Two of them belonged to Morie Sawataishi, who was instrumental in reviving the breed.

Nearly four years ago, Shadow managed to sneak out of our house one night, went down to a nearby creek, and was bitten on a hind leg by a fer de lance, a very aggressive and venomous pit viper; they are nocturnal hunters. Shadow came back in the morning, limping on three legs but otherwise joyful to be back with us. She deteriorated and a veterinary friend came to see what she could do, spending the night with us. Shadow died at 2:00 a.m. on December 5, 2006.

Shadow had what may have been an instinctive tendency, but I think was a unique one, to teach other animals how to play; they seemed to understand exactly what she was doing. She and some of our horses took turns chasing each other around; it was all good fun and they enjoyed it and each other. Here is a photo of Sugar, one of the foals, lying peacefully on the ground as Shadow seems to whisper in her ear. Sunshine shares many of Shadow's traits, including her devotion and sense of fun.

When another bitch, Honey, about whom more later, had pups, Shadow ignored them until they were several weeks old. Then, she tried to teach them some things. I remember looking out the window and seeing Shadow lying on the lawn, with all six young pups lined up attentively in front of her. Shadow was clearly the teacher, and she appeared to be emphasizing her points by gesticulating with her paws.

Whenever a potential conflict seemed about to arise between dogs or between dogs and horses, Shadow sensed it and would intervene – not dangerously but simply by getting between them and preventing any conflict from developing. She was the alpha, and there was no mistaking it. She knew it, other dogs knew it, and so did the horses.

When Honey adopted us, she was in pitiful shape; she appeared on our back porch, malnourished, weak and fearful of humans; it was obvious that she had been mistreated. Reluctantly, because we did not want another dog then, we put out some food for her. She kept coming back. When we finally allowed her into the house, Shadow and our "boat cat," Pumpkin, who had adopted us when we were docked at a marina in Venezuela, ganged up on her and tried to chase her away – once. Honey wouldn't leave and they made peace.

Ruff, one of Honey's sons, chose his own name. When he was only a few weeks old, I asked him what his name should be. He replied, "Ruff," and so be it. He is very sweet, gentle and not very bright.

Princess is part Akita and part "finca dog." On the morning when Shadow died, my wife and I went to cry on the shoulder of the woman who had bred her. We cried together, and she gave Princess, a then eight week old pup, to us. Sunshine came to live with us a few months later when she was about eight weeks old. Like Shadow, Princess has a mind of her own and sometimes behaves in ways I wish she wouldn't. She has lived up to her name, regal bearing and all. She doesn't have quite the sense of humor which Shadow had and Sunshine has, but her devotion is indisputable.

There is a clear chain of command. Sunshine is the alpha prima, Princess is second, Ruff is a distant third and Honey is last; however, at feeding time, Honey often mounts her son Ruff from the rear to remind him that she is his mama and to stay away from her food; he does. They undoubtedly recognize their familial relationship; the mother – son relationship is remarkable. Other positions are occasionally challenged. Not long ago, Sunshine developed a dermatological condition and it was necessary to take her to the vet. He had to anesthetize her to shave part of her fur and deal with the problem, which he did successfully. When we drove her back to our finca, she was still a bit wobbly and Ruff sensed it; he tried to challenge her, with no success. Despite her temporarily debilitated condition, she quickly put him in his place; there was no fight.

On rare occasion it has been necessary to break up dog fights, particularly when the chain of command had been challenged, often but not always in the context of food. Doing so can be dangerous. Several days ago, Sunshine managed to grab from the kitchen counter a container of chicken liver I had cooked to mix with the dogs' food. Sunshine wanted it, and that was that. Akitas are notorious for their possessiveness when food is involved. Generally, I know better than to leave that sort of thing in reach; I goofed. None of the other dogs got involved, so the potentially fatal dog fight I had feared didn't happen; they are probably smarter as to such things than I am. When I tried to get Sunshine away from the yummy liver, I couldn't. All else having failed, I kicked her, hard, and she still wouldn't relinquish the food. I finally grabbed her by the neck and she bit me on the left hand and wrist, missing an artery in my wrist by less than an inch. Within minutes, the dispute was over and Sunshine was banished for a hour from the house while my wife attended to my wound and I took a nap. It is necessary to disabuse any dog of any incipient notion that he is the alpha vis a vis his master, but I went about it the wrong way. I behaved stupidly and now know better how to deal with such a situation. Here is the best advice I have found. Next time, I hope I can do better. Ms. Grandin notes,

Dog owners must establish themselves as he alpha, period. This is the one rule you must not ignore. A dog who thinks he's the alpha in the house is dangerous, because dogs will fight any lower-ranked pack mate who challenges them. If the family dog becomes the alpha he's going to be especially dangerous around important resources like food and his resting place.

When Sunshine was allowed back in, she was very submissive --head down, ears back -- and seemed to beg forgiveness. She had behaved as her instincts had dictated, and we made up immediately. When an alpha dog attacks one of his subordinates, it is common when the argument has been settled for the alpha to initiate the peace-making process; perhaps it is a sense of guilt and perhaps it is not. The alpha does so by approaching in a non-aggressive manner and licking the face and mouth of his victim; "kissing" on the mouth is common among dogs. That does not mean that similar flareups will not recur.

Our Horses: Unlike dogs, who are predators, horses are prey animals. Their principal defense is flight, though they will stand and fight if necessary. A mare has very little time to teach her foal sufficient survival skills, including the need for flight, and while the foal remains vulnerable will place herself between the foal and the perceived source of danger. While foals are able to walk and run within a very short time of birth, there is much to teach and little time for it.

Horses will also defend their turf from other horses and establish chains of command. When dogs put their ears back flat against their heads, they are signaling submission or lack of aggressive intent, whether it be to another dog, to a horse or to a human. When horses do the same thing, they are signaling that they may attack; it is a warning. The next signal is a baring of the teeth, soon to be followed by a bite if the warning is not heeded. The warning signals and their sequence are universally recognized, respected or not, by other horses. Perhaps strangely, our horses recognize that the first signal they use to show hostility means the opposite when displayed by our dogs.

Horses and dogs are very different animals. That horses are prey animals explains why their eyes are located on the sides of their heads (similar to chickens), giving them roughly 270^o rather than 180^o vision. They can nevertheless be surprised by an approach from their blind spot, directly to the rear, which is why doing that is a bad idea likely to result in being kicked. Some are more easily frightened than others – just as people have different personalities, they all have different "horsealities." Due to their eye placement, horses have poor three dimensional vision and can't well gauge the depth of streams when asked to cross. Until they learn to have confidence in their riders, they trust their own instincts which can be frustrating to all concerned. That is why gaining their trust is the most important part of training them.

When we bought Flash, a handsome three year old jet black Colombian Paso Fino, he had never been saddled. I spent over a month grooming him, doing other things he seemed to find pleasant, getting him accustomed to the saddle pad and then to the saddle – first, showing them to him and then putting them on his back. He was frightened and that's why it took so long. He had previously been treated poorly, and that's probably part of the reason. Genetics may well have been involved as well. When Flash came to accept the saddle, I put some weight – with my hand – in the left stirrup and repeated the process until it no longer seemed to upset him. At the same time, I did lots of dismounted ground work, teaching him to yield to pressure where I would later apply it for communication: where the reins would press on his neck and where my legs would press against his body. When I finally mounted him, there was no problem. In less than six months, he became quite an enjoyable ride but remains very "spooky" and is afraid of strangers. He would be dangerous for a novice, or one unable to deal with vigorous shying, to ride.

Several years ago, we decided to have Flash gelded; as a stallion he had been very sweet and gentle, most of the time, but had started to show some undesirable stallion characteristics. Before doing so, we wanted to breed him to one of our mares, Pimienta, a paso fino – quarter horse mix. The mating ritual was beautiful. [[photo 3]]. Eleven months later, Pimienta gave birth to Sizzler, and Shadow was one of her first friends; they met within hours of Sizzler's birth. An immediate bond of trust was apparent [photo 4]. Flash recognizes his familial relationship with Sizzler, and they seem to get along as a father and his daughter should.

Teka is a paso fino – quarter horse mix, rather a dark gray gelding when we bought him but now almost white. Teka was at first a problem. He wanted to do what he wanted to do, rather than what I wanted him to do. We eventually got over that problem, and he now seems almost to read my mind. When I want to turn left, he senses the shift of weight accompanying the turn of my head in the desired direction and responds accordingly. A barely perceptible shift of my weight to the rear tells him I want him to stop. He will go from a dead stop to a full gallop with the slightest signal, a minor shift of my weight to the front and gentle leg pressure.

What does any of this have to do with human interactions? A lot, I think. Humans are predators, not prey animals. We are also to a great extent pack or herd animals, similar in that respect to dogs and horses. Perhaps as Ms. Grandin suggests, this is an evolutionary development. Humans want to have leaders who will care for and protect us -- or in any event claim to do so. Unlike other animals, human leaders sometimes lie, and we often believe them. Instinctive or not, we have long been conditioned to these things. Over time, that may be why we developed ideologies, religions, tribes and political parties. Perhaps if we didn't have them we would find ourselves adrift. That's one of the reasons I suggested here a need for an artificial god if there is not a real one.

It strikes me as unrealistic to expect us to behave any time soon much differently than we do. If it happens, it will be a very long evolutionary process and I see no clear signs that it's happening. It's all very well to wish that we would all sing kumbaya and just get along with neither hostility nor rancor. It ain't likely to happen, not with opposing packs of dogs, opposing herds of horses, or opposing packs of humans. On the other hand, . . . .

Boredom, the Curse of the Cruising Life

I wrote this back sometime in 2001 or maybe 2002, and it was intended as a spoof of my fellow cruisers. Most don't have the attitudes suggested, and it's grossly unfair. Still .............

The teak sparkles with countless coats of varnish, the stainless steel glistens, and the fuel filters are new. You just changed the oil and replaced all the rusted hose clamps. The halyards and sheets are pristine. The refrigeration works perfectly, and the ice maker puts out more ice than you can possibly use. The new frambis you brought back from the States has been installed, and as soon as you figure out the instructions (translated from Japanese into Ubangi and thence into English) and determine what it is for, you will play with it. You’ve been dragged from your favorite cruiser hangout to see a few of the more interesting sights in Puerto Mujeres Feas. You’ve read Caribbean Compass cover to cover and memorized all the interesting advertisements. Nobody in the anchorage seems to want any help, except for the guy who wants someone to go up the mast and retrieve a lost halyard. You’ve been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and have no interest in repeating the experience. There isn’t a pot luck supper till next Tuesday, and you have read all of the really good books available at the book exchange. What can you do to stave off boredom? You could, of course, pull up the anchor and leave. But you are waiting for mail and it looks as though the weather might get rocky in a few days and what’s the point?

This is a problem constantly faced by cruisers, and the U.S. Government has finally created a new mental health program designed specifically to help bored cruisers cope. Unfortunately, it will remain in the beta test mode until 2005, and is currently available only in Idaho. So, for a while at least, it is up to you. Better get busy. Here are some ideas. They all involve getting out of the “cruising rut” and mixing it up a bit with the locals. You will enjoy it, and they will benefit immeasurably from the experience as well.

Learn a Foreign Language

Many of the places frequented by cruisers have quaint and colorful foreign languages. Given even a passing acquaintance with the local language, you will be able to interact with the local foreigners and discover many interesting things about their primitive cultures. You will also be able to tell the waiter that you wanted a cold beer, not the exotic mixture of fruit juice and curdled goat milk he just served. Want to have your injectors cleaned, no problema. Just ask, in the local foreign language.

This project can occupy you for days, if not weeks. There is so much to learn! Here are six simple rules, applicable to all foreign languages prevalent in the Caribbean with the exception of pigeon English:

1. Foreigners are obsessed with sex, and everything has a sexual component. The boat is male. The house is female. The dog can be either male or female, depending (strangely) on its actual sex. The fuel filter is male. The fuel itself if female. The propane bottle is bisexual. Properly, you need to use a verb, pronoun or adjective of the corresponding sexual orientation. As a cruiser trying to learn a foreign language, this is all very difficult. You are not a professional linguist, so just ignore the problem: use the same prefixes and suffixes for everything. It is not only easier that way, it is the ultimate in political correctness, like bisex auto body shops. Some particularly dense locals may experience difficulty in understanding you, but most will have no problem. They will be so happy that you are trying to communicate in their own language that they will offer you free beer at every opportunity.

2. Avoid irregular verbs. There are more than enough regular verbs to meet all of your simple requirements.

3. There are numerous tenses: present, past, future, present perfect, present imperfect, future perfect, future imperfect, past perfect, past imperfect, future really good, past not so great, etc. Don’t bother. Just use the present tense.

4. There are formal pronouns and verbs. Properly, to ask someone you have known for less that six months for a glass of water, you should use the formal forms of the pronouns and verbs. It is all very classist and connotes a less than democratic attitude. Use the informal forms with everyone. It’s friendlier that way, and you don’t want to seem to be a snob.

5. The imperative is used when telling someone to do something. It’s sort of complicated, so just use the present tense first person and speak more loudly and with more authority.

6. Often, simply adding an “o” at the end of an English word will convert it into Spanish. It’s worth a try. One minor caution: you do not want to buy “gaso” for the dinghy. It sounds a lot like gasoy, which is diesel fuel. In any event, English should be the universal language, so it is perfectly acceptable to use English words if the foreign word is too obscure. By placing English words in an easy to understand context, you will help the foreigners to learn English. They will appreciate your efforts.

Follow these simple rules, and you can learn to speak any foreign language real good.

Discover the local culture.

Now that you speak the local language, you can easily learn everything worth knowing about the foreign culture. The first thing to do, of course, is to get off the boat and head into town. Do not go to the cruiser bar, where all of the other cruisers speak at least some English and probably don’t know any more about the indigenous people than you do. You want to experience these things first hand. That’s one of the reasons you came cruising, isn’t it?

In any town of reasonable size, just going for a walk will allow you to meet many interesting foreign people. On the pretense of trying to sell you a hat, a package of chewing gum, or even some charming native handicraft, they will approach you in pitifully broken English. Surprise them! Speak their own language. You can do that, now that you have learned how. Engage them in a discussion about their culture. Ask why so many of the local people wear funny clothes and ingest strange food. Why is the “Gringo tax” so high? Why is petty theft a national pastime? Haven’t they learned to watch football on television?

Visit a local outdoor meat, fruit or vegetable market. Ask about the many colorful fruit and vegetables which are unfamiliar to you. Why do they coat the hanging goat carcasses with insects? Is it to cure the meat, or just a misguided effort to keep the flies off the customers? Go ahead. Ask. They will appreciate your interest. You might suggest that the carcasses be sprayed with DDT; that works.

Check out a local cathedral. They are all very beautiful, and most are in a state of quaint disrepair. Some cruisers feel that without the appropriate formal clothing (long pants, a clean shirt, and even shoes), going inside might seem disrespectful. Don’t worry. The religious functionaries in such places spend most of their time inside, in cool, dark places and sadly have little opportunity to meet cruisers. Anything you would feel comfortable wearing at a local cruiser bar is just fine. A cruiser knapsack can be used to cover your head, should you feel a compelling need to conform to the local custom to that extent.

Get Involved in the Local Community. Cruisers take a lot from the foreign communities they visit, and a little “give back” can go a long way to help the local foreigners. Befriend a foreign child, and teach him how to clean your hull. It is a skill that will enrich his life, and provide him a way to earn a living when he grows up. Take some little street urchins sailing, to provide an incentive to study and work hard so they can have their own sailing yachts when they grow up. Organize a pot luck dinner and raffle to benefit the local leper colony. Collect English language soap opera magazines from other cruisers and donate them to the library, so that the foreigners can learn all about American culture. Take an interest in the politics of the foreign country, and be sure to offer your helpful suggestions on ways that things could be done so much better, like we do in the States. Just keep in mind that many foreigners are very sensitive, and avoid any suggestion of superiority or of indifference to their rich and multifaceted primitive culture.

Learning the local foreign language, discovering the local culture, and helping the foreigners you meet in strange places to understand the cruising life will go a long way toward the avoidance of boredom. You will gain a newly awakened sense of satisfaction with what you have accomplished. It should all be a major part of the cruising experience.