As I view it from Village Square. 

A core of 21st century robber barons appeared before the Senate this last week and for what purpose? To prove that such creatures exist.

Is this what Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations turned out to be, the wealth of 21^st century bandits? Big bang capitalism, in the world of physics, the turning of things that are almost nothing into things measured in billions, in this case billions of dollars? 

In creating an economy of non-matter, money taken from others and made their own is of no social significance.   

The billionaires were arrogant and self-righteous, wile the Senators appeared stupid in their acceptance of robber's “capitalistic language” that justified their existence and that of this type of non-economic activity that turns our system on its head.

Senators pretended to understand and accepted this language.  They failed to place these “robbers” in a position to justifying their existence or of even explaining what significance this type of activity has to do with improving or even maintaining the American economy.

In fact, Wall Street needs to justify what its real role is when it comes to stock exchange and how it serves corporations in obtaining the capital they need in exchange for stock.   Why do normal corporations have to go outside the community for capital?   Why to New York?

Does the stock market exist  merely for the purpose of those who run it?  If so, what social function does the stock market really perform?  What justifies the additional charges to the public?

We have entered a 21^st century economic situation where if something is not illegal it is not necessarily immoral and therefore acceptable business practice. Is there that much disconnection between morality and legality in a rational society?

It has been said, that society is mad and if it weren't for this insanity, we wouldn't be tolerating the irrationality of wealth without productive activity.  Why would people of government appear to be accepting these illegal and immoral transactions?

Our madness is being proved by many of the things happening only in the past weeks. I'm sure there are other areas of madness that shall be coming up in the days ahead.

 Shorewood Connects announces another senior project, “Cuppa Joe” at Einstein's Bagels 4301 N Oakland, on Tuesday Mornings beginning May 4^th, from 10 to 11:30 am.

Connect (or hang out) with your peers, on Tuesday Mornings. . Thanks to Einstein's Bagels and Shorewood Connects and all the good people involved.

Let's make the most out of our first Tuesday meeting, share stories and laughs and enjoy the morning in a local friendly atmosphere. This is the place for us boys and girls to be on Tuesday mornings.  Let's not miss the first “history making” Cuppa Joe connection TUESAY MAY 4th.  

 Tuesday Mornings, 10 to 11:30 at Einstein's.   Ses you there. 

A reality perspective.

Given the premise of social madness, then society's lesser internal elements, operating in daily conformity of course would appear rationally consistent, while remaining certifiably insane.

If we are not to accept this negative view and society is not mad, then does it mean that its lesser internal elements, operating in daily conformity are certifiably rational?

What does it matter, if society is mad or not mad?  Does the conclusion or the question of madness, merely proclaimed merit consideration?  Perhaps some thought?  Then what?  Perhaps more thought. Perhaps more questions?

But the question remains, what if society were mad?  Then where do the rest of us stand?

BILL BENJAMIN.

A recently published list of names of people who have donated to the the Shorewood Foundation appeared in a recent publication.

I looked for Bill Benjamin's name, a former Shorewood citizen who had been quite a participant in important Shorewood functions. I feel honored to have sat on a planning committee with him years ago.

I don't believe there are more than a few who have donated as much as $1.2 million to the Foundation. Yet I could not find his name on the list. I've not seen his name in public print nor mentioned by public officials of late.  What about Bill Benjamin?

Have members of the Foundation heard of  his name or that he left a million dollars for senior facilities? Perhaps that was too much money to leave. So his name is to be remembered separately and given special honor?

I know that Bill Benjamin left Shorewood over 1 million dollars.  I hope that I shall not be the only citizen to publicly remind people of that.  Could it have got misplaced?

I think his name should come up over and over again and that he be honored for having done that? Shouldn't the Foundation make special mention of Bill Benjamin's gift to the community and what of plans for its future use?  

Democrats can walk on water.   Rush Limbaugh is going to show how Republicans can walk on oil.

Once again, the British are on American shores, this time suppling cheap oil.

BP

Sure you can become an American Citizen. But a Senator in charge of citizen distribution can take all that naturalization stuff back from you if you just don't look quite right or are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What about naturalized citizens, such as wives of Senators? Such as yours , Joe? Where should they be tried if caught driving through a red light? Military court? Then does she get de-naturalized.

How about taking away someone's citizenship if he was born in Hawaii, or if we're not sure he's a citizen, or whose father came from Kenya or was born in Nebraska even after it became a territory, Mr. Lieberman? What about descendants of slaves? Were they naturalized? Can they be made unnatural again?

What about big government's role in this. Why all the concern? Is it because we want to grow our own tea here for tea parties or plug into our own oil supply as we are doing so well in the Gulf? I'm glad the constitution wasn't written in these times.

How about spending more time on job-creation? Perhaps not like British Petroleum is doing. They are creating clean-up jobs? Isn't that great? Dirty it up, then clean it up. The logic sounds just about right and seems to square with yours, Mr. Independent Senator Joe.

What difference does it make to the rest of us, if someone else were to occupy your seat in the Senate? Do you have to pop with some crazy idea to show that you are there from time to time?

A sea of oil.

Given an old Japanese tradition, Palin, Limbaugh and McCain would have knelt in some isolated place and driven a sword in their bellies somewhere under their navels, positioned slightly to the right in hopes of getting their honor back after death.

British Petroleum needs to plug up the hole in the sea floor with golf balls. Perhaps the Tiger can supply them with a number of silk stockings full of them to stuff into the broken pipe along with plenty of hair for containing surface oil.

In addition to oil soaked birds, dead fish, floating politicians with swords in their bellies, we'd now have a mixture of golf balls, salt water and oil, making up a new consistency for the Gulf of Mexico.

Just before sailing over the edge of the earth and falling endlessly downward, I can see a clan poised on the beach at the other side, determined to contribute urine to the sea to see if that would dilute or rid it of its oil content.  That would certainly be a rather meaningful act, who knows and that might do it, especially if the golf balls don't work.

Now the big question. What if this now small but opened gap in the sea floor doesn't stop yielding this precious but destructive muck?

I have a slogan for anyone seriously running for national office that will mean election certainty, especially for those running for office from Alaska and Arizona. How about “drill baby drill?”

President Obama should take the hint from former candidates for president and vice president and build a “dang fence” between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That is probably as good as the “drill baby drill” concept and may work as effectively as a “dang fence” between Arizona and Mexico.

Arizona business people could establish a firm, Dang Fence, Inc. and bring illegal aliens in from Mexico through a specially design gate to make parts of the dang fence  in a factory in Arizona.

That would improve the employment picture there.  They could export  "Dang Fences" all over the world.  This idea could certainly get Senator McCain re-elected rather easily. 

Past becomes larger and larger with time, a product of converted human experience, grinding away at future ever diminishing.

Thoughts tend to disappear unless “put to paper.” In the past, they often became the word and in some cases scripture.

Even paper, previously stone, often disappears along with the thoughts placed there, except for thoughts that enter the minds of those inclined toward thinking.

Having read or heard the thoughts of others, one accepts or discards their meaning. This can be done either consciously or without reflection. Unlike the specifics of mathematical elements, words stimulate interpretations and emotions and cast various individual meanings.

Just as I'm stimulated by the thoughts of others, I tend, as one who professes, to consciously try to stimulate the thoughts of others.

Those who sit at your feet must be constantly cautioned at the fleeting meanings and interpretations that can be placed on various thoughts. And that all ideas must be weighed within their own minds.

Those who circle you, walking along the sidelines with skeptical appearance on their faces are looking for thoughts that they can disagree with. They cannot be cautioned nor warned as to true meaning.

And then there are those who turn deaf to thoughts of others, even if they have none of their own. There is no advice that can be given them. Even shaking does not awaken them.

But once spoken or “placed on paper,” those thoughts are out there. They can not be ignored nor pushed out of consciousness.

No matter how much we disagree, when referencing them, they influence or tend to dissuade our thoughts and even affect us in considering the thoughts of others.

We are generally what others think, only modified by our own thoughts. Therefore, the clear often application of our own thoughts to ideas significant to us as individuals cause us to learn and make us truly who we are individually, even here in Shorewood.

My intergenerational Tuesday started with coffee at Einstein's at 10:00 to 11:30 last week.

Tuesday, I had coffee with several people who would have been considered to be in the last quarter of their lives. We talked a lot about things of today.

We also talked a lot about how things that were yesterday.  It was both interesting and fun.

Later that day, I met a young architectural student who is living in the first quarter of her life.

I represented the field of learning in which she was most interested and she wanted to discuss many things with me. This was unlike people her age serving at Walgreen's who can not by nature see elderly persons in their line of vision.

So I called Tuesday my intergenerational day.

Later in the week, I talked with a relative who is interested in geriatric medicine and who is toward the end of that second quarter of her life. Her work, her research and her readings have led her to believe that someone already born in the world today will never experience death. Can we place that in the illusion category?

I also received the last Scientific American a few days ago with one of articles listed on the cover proclaiming that time is an illusion. That's fine. The physicists are meeting up with the philosopher who says life is an illusion. Einstein was among the first in modern days to deal with the question of the reality of time.

Speaking of Einstein, those of us who crossed generations with Albert are expecting to meet at Einstein's on Oakland, Tuesday at 10:00 to 11:30 A.M. for coffee and bagels, illusion or not.

If there were a party that advocated free education and health care, which I feel are the essentials of a functioning modern nation.especially one  that advocates equality and opportunity to all its citizens, I'd be inclined toward some kind of association with it.

In Wisconsin it is not necessary to declare as Republican or Democrat to vote.  As neither party advocates what I think to be essential to the the function of a healthy democratic nation, I am neither Democrat nor Republican.

Today's Democratic Party although giving lip service to both these essentials has not given sufficient energy to make “free education” and universal medical care a reality.

It is instead inclined toward dealing with “corporation capitalism,” while the Republican Party seems, at least for the moment to be in complete support of “corporation capitalism.”

Both parties find it difficult to appropriately engage British Petroleum, for example because they are mesmerized by the doings of “corporation capitalism. "

While “corporation capitalists” present us with all sorts of illusions dealing with equality and opportunity, this contemporary system of “free enterprise” seems to be working best for the moneyed class, those on Easy Street.

There are many opportunities for those of us who seek then to live full lives without devoting our lives merely to money making for the sake of money making. We don't have to have the kind of life that is centered in places like New York.

Nor do we have to exist primarily for shifting empty things and meaningless papers around so that some people can make money by practically stealing if from others.

I'm sure that Adam Smith and his followers at about the same time our constitution developed did not foresee the development of the type of “corporation capitalism” that we have today.

Few people of the time could even think or foresee of a nation like the United States and a free enterprise economic system lasting this long.

Our country as it has evolved seems to need two major parties to function.  However, I'm not a strong believer in the practicalities of either party. 

Therefore, I must stand on the side lines and hope that I can vote for some one that these parties put up as candidates, not that party always matters much to candidates, as it seems members can switch from one party to another quite easily,  pretty much as is done with ball teams.   

I would certainly be interested in the economic system of the 18^th century Adam Smith system, but that is in the past, and it remains a conservative aspiration that will never happen. again.  Therefore,  I can not be enticed by either party.

I do know that “corporation capitalism” endangers all that our forefathers believed in and that neither party is going to give us the free educational system that our democracy is dependent on.

We have seen that our government can only give us a type of “corporation capitalistic health care,” based on profits for the insurance companies, although it is doubtful as to what services insurance companies  perform. Only a corporation influenced congress could pass the present health bill that is dominated by corporation thinking.

I'm for diminishing the power of “corporation capitalism,” Wall Street and the financial institutions and I'm for developing a more democratic capitalism and a political system that will provide education and health care for everyone.

But all this too seems to be an illusion, as strangly enough, all rational things often seem to be. 

That is the question.

In today's world where and when most governments justify their existence in representing the good of the people, they tend to justify also going to war as an effort of “the greatest good.”

We honor those who went to war over the past century for what was believed to be the greatest good. And honor we must those who gave their lives for their country in previous centuries and those who returned half-whole.

We need to honor all of them more by what we do for those returning today from the actual wars we are engaged in.

Regardless of the questions raised considering the greatest good at times, the Japanese and the Germany's sent their soldiers to die in the interest of the greatest good for their nations.

And today, they honor their soldiers as they must, but need not raise the question as whether they died in the interest of the greatest good. But they died for their countries.

Today governments must raise this issue, of placing so many of their own in danger if they are not sure it is in the greatest good.

Many in our nation today, perhaps most, do not believe that being involved in war within two nations and perhaps within a third may not be in our own good nor in that of the nations in which we are involved.

I'm a veteran of the second world war but don't claim any honors for that, but being in that war, I can agree that it was for “our greatest good.”  But not for the Germans whose country was devastated and as were most the people.

We cannot be so emphatic about present involvement in war. Yet in the interest of those who went and who go to war, we honor them today. The living, the dead and the maimed. We honor their families. But governments must face the question of “the greatest good.”

President Obama, didn't believe that being in Iraq was in the interest of what was our greatest good. If it isn't for the “greatest” good of what good is it that we are still there?

And for what good are we in Afghanistan? In honoring men and women of past and present wars, we honor them even more by raising the question of whether it is for the nation's greatest good?

The Germans and the Japanese thought that they were fighting for the greatest good of their nations. They should have raised that question.

It turned out that it was not in their best interest. They have all the right to honor theirs, those who fought in that war against us even if it wasn't in their best interest.

Tomorrow, our government should go about explaining whether we are at war in the interest of the people they represent. They should raise that question every day until at least the majority of us can say that it's in our “greatest interest.”

If it is not in our greatest interest, why are we there?

I can still raise this question even if my heart bleeds for all of those who have had to experience combat.