Bless you, Boys!

One of our local TV sportscasters coined the phrase "Bless you, Boys!" during the glorious summer of 1968, when our beloved Tigers won the A.L. pennant and the World Series.  Someone wrote a catchy song that year, too: We're all behind our baseball team -- Go get 'em, Tigers!  That team had players like Kaline, Cash, Horton, McLain and Lolich.  Both the phrase and the song were revived during the awesome 1984 season when our team held first place from day 1 and won it all again.  That was the Morris, Gibson, Parrish, Trammell and Whitaker team.  

Now here we are once more.  The good guys have won their division and the pennant, and tonight they face the San Francisco Giants in the World Series.  I've heard "Bless you, Boys" a few times as well as the "Go, Get 'Em" song.  It's going to be a great series with Verlander, Cabrera, Fielder and Jackson, and a whole roster of potential heroes.  Tonight is game 1, and it'll all be over a week from tomorrow.  So let's sing a round of "Go get 'em Tigers" and proudly proclaim, "BLESS YOU, BOYS".

This handsome bus driver is a Tigers fan.

Yes, that's me in my new career as a bus driver for our local school district.  After 4 years of retirement, I saw a posting for new drivers and I decided this is just what I had hoped to be able to do after leaving the corporate, office, sit-at-a-desk-all-day, work on a computer, answer the phone, attend meetings work I had done for 30 years.  I get up early to take those precious kids to their schools.  Then I'm off from about 9:30 till 1:30 before returning to drive them back home.  It's good, honest work and there's no pressure for me to perform or advance.  Plus I only drive about 2 miles to the "office."

Well, the game is on so I'll sign off.  Nothing political or controversial here, unless you're a Giants fan.  Thanks for reading, and Go Tigers!

The USA -- is or are?

This is a post I've been wanting to write for quite a while.  I was finally prompted to do it while watching the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, and it touches on some of the core differences between the ideologies of the candidates and their parties.  Mr. Romney stated that it is up to local and state governments to make decisions about things like education and health care; that it is not the role of the federal government, implying of course that Mr. Obama favors a stronger role for the government in D.C.  I guess most of us realize that democrats are known for leaning toward a strong central government while republicans cling to the concept of strong local government.  Before I share my thoughts on this, I ask you, my reader: "Which is correct to say, 'The United States is a great country,' or 'The United States are a great country?'  

Think about what this means:  Are we primarily a united nation composed of 50 states?  Or are we 50 individual states which collectively comprise a nation?  I feel this is a very important point, and it has in fact been debated basically from the beginning.  The British colonies that declared their independence in 1776 were all formed initially by different charters from the kings of England.  It wasn't easy getting all thirteen to agree to take the drastic step of standing against the crown, but they had to do it together or not at all.  The fact that thirteen colonies agreed to be bound together in their fate did not erase their many differences.  The citizens of America tied their identities and loyalties to their colonies much more than to America as a nation, and this continued on through the Revolution and independence.  The name of our country clearly reflects this.  Each colony regarded itself basically an independent state, united to one another by common interests, needs and concerns.  We were initially The United States of America (plural).

Many feel that The United States (plural) became The United States (singular) following the Civil War.  In fact the war was primarily fought over the question of whether any of the states had the right to separate, or secede, from the rest.  The war's result being a reunified nation, it was felt that the question had then been settled: we are one nation, The United States of America.  It became official in 1902 when the House of Representatives' committee on revision of the law ruled The United States should be treated as a singular, not a plural term.

So what does this mean for us and what does it have to do with this evening's debate?  My take on it is this:  We live in the 21st century and the country has come a long way from the 18th century frontier nation that was formed out of necessity as a sort of coalition against a strong-handed monarch on another continent.  Today we are Americans much more than New Yorkers, Michiganders, Californians or Texans.  We move easily from state to state.  The very term of 'state' means to us a subset of our nation rather than an independent entity.  We have progressed from an infant, frontier, democratic experiment of a nation to a world-leading economic, military and industrial powerhouse.  I doubt we could have accomplished this as a collection of 50 independent states.

I believe it is inevitable that a strong nation will grow more centralized over time.  Progress demands that laws, customs, transportation systems, manufacturing and trading opportunities be uniform and free from obstruction within a country's borders.  To accomplish this there must also be a strong government entity to oversee and regulate commerce in a way that assures smooth business transactions throughout the nation.  Any difference in laws or regulations among the states only serves to impede the smooth operations necessary for progress.

This brings me to the crux of my argument.  One of our great political parties is commonly referred to as progressive, while the other is self-proclaimed as conservative.  To me these two terms serve well to indicate the overriding attitudes of the two parties.  "Progressive" implies moving forward, making the changes necessary to advance.  On the other hand, the root of "conservative" means to keep or preserve the current state of affairs.  This is the party we hear calling us to adhere to the constitution and to the intents of our founders (looking backward).  The other accepts that the world is changing and that our attitudes and practices sometimes need to reflect this (looking forward).  The ideal of strong local and state governments may be quaint and out of touch with the needs of today's realities.  I question the wisdom of having differing statutes by state on matters such as voting age, driver licensing, marriage requirements or education standards and funding.  This ties to one of my earlier posts where I suggested it may be time to rewrite our 18th century constitution to bring our nation's legal system up to the times in which we live.

I hope this piece makes sense.  I've tried to put my thoughts down in a way that can be followed and understood.  You can agree or disagree -- that's the purpose of this site!  And that's what makes the USA a great country.  Maybe these lines will help you to decide how to vote next month.  Just be sure to VOTE, and thanks, as always, for reading my humble post.