An effort at understanding and acceptance

Hi All!

I just received an email from a man who has become an email friend through another email friend. Is name is Harold. We have never met in person and probably never will. Like me, he lost his beloved wife so we have that bond. He is very up front with his Christianity and writes a lot about believing and sharing his beliefs with others. He is definitely an evangelist. I’m sure his "religiosity" would make some of you feel uncomfortable while there are others who would feel quite warm and resonate with his words. I am one who would probably vacillate somewhere between those two extremes. Harold and my Barbara would have had a lot to talk about. Barb and I had many discussions about God, religion and being a Christian as our views were and still are, very different. There was no right or wrong, left or right, construct or destruct to any of our opinions expressed during our discussions. They were more she trying to explain and define her beliefs and me doing the same and with each of us treating the other with respect and honor. There was never any kind of intended rancor or even value questioning of our differences, only listening, sharing and comparing. During these discussions I learned a great deal about her and I’m sure she did also about me. Though neither of made any concerted effort or argument to change the other’s system of beliefs, I’m sure some modifications or adjustments to our belief systems inevitably crept in to each of us. I miss those treasured discussions terribly.

Why am I sharing this with you, now? It’s really quite simple. We’ve just been through a heated and highly contested election. Had Barb been available, we would have had many spirited discussions about the whos whys, whats, and whatevers of the political scene and what they all meant to us. Believe it or not, our discussions were conducted in much the same manner as our religious discussions - quite spirited and sometimes emotional, but without insult, anger or rancor - assumed or expressed at each other. We were each free to express our feelings about candidates, issues and parties and did so freely. Of course we understood and respected each other’s positions and tried not to be offensive, apologizing when and if we did. (We were human you know)

Without that outlet for my energies I turned to what has become a major outlet for my thoughts and ideas, writing. You have all been subjected to barrages and salvos from my embattled position and most have remained silent. (Maybe you just chose to ignore my rants) Fortunately, some of you have responded in varying degrees of shock, disagreement, condemnation and - on the positive side - confirmation, agreement and support. I read every word with interest, study and concerned thought. I thank each and every one who responded, especially those who disagreed. (Someone once said, "If two people agree, what’s the point in having a discussion?")

I have been informed that some of my words were too strident, biased, angry and or any number of other negative characteristics - that I shouldn’t take my anger and frustration out on family and friends. If I came across as assaulting any of you directly, please understand that was not my intent. We humans communicate on very different levels of accuracy. Sometimes there is a vast chasm between the intent of words by one and the understanding of those same words by others. I believe it was Thoreau who said, "In human intercourse the tragedy begins, not when there is a misunderstanding about words, but when silence is not understood." The only way for this not to happen is for words to be spoken and shared. Still, communication between people of widely different views are fraught with opportunities for misunderstandings and transfer of emotion from its intended place to another - we tend to personalize emotions. For example, my own sharply negative feelings directed at the likes of Howard Dean’s clearly hate inspired comment, "I hate Republicans . . . etc." should not be construed to be meant for all liberal Democrats. While that should be quite obvious, some of my other comments certainly are not so clear cut.

My lady, Daphne has pointed out several of my offensive comments and asked me to try to be less strident in my political writings. I am trying to comply, but fear complete compliance will result in bland poi or grits flavored words. I get really angry at emotional, hate filled accusations and diatribes, particularly when there is literally no effort at creatively solving any of the many very real problems facing our nation. Both political parties do this, but I see Democrats as far more expert at using this to swing voters than Republicans. There are many examples cited in my previous rants. I have suggested many real and practical solutions to many of our serious problems. I am presently working on a book titled, "Solutions" wherein I offer many of these solutions. Thus far, and in spite of directing attention to my blogs in many emails I have not received a single commentary about any of these "solutions," pro or con. Apparently, while many are interested in political posturing, noone is interested in the offerings of solutions. Just as there was a dearth of issue discussions even mentioned among the great volumes of personal attacks during the last election, interest in real concrete issues and solutions seems to have no place or even mention in this political campaigns. This even seems to be the case in Congress for that matter. To me this is indeed a very sad state of affairs.

My personal inclination, my education, my direction in life have all pointed me in the direction of practical solutions to every problem. Around the house and even at other places I am "Mr. Fixit" who can and will repair and correct all manner of little problems. Most of you are quite aware of this. Engineers are trained in the science and art of taking things out of the ground, the air, the forests, the rivers and the oceans and converting them into useful (and a few frivolous) items and systems. In the process, damage to the environment can result. And who is it that figures out how to repair those damaged areas? Engineers! Protesters may stop activities that damage the environment. Lawyers may seek damages from those that caused the problem and provide money to the injured parties (and themselves), but it is engineers that figure out how to repair and correct the damage done and then figure out how to produce things using new methods that do not damage the environment. Ideally this is so, but being practical, no solution is perfect.

There is no problem that arises that doesn’t trigger a "find a solution" reaction within me. Most of the time the problem falls outside my areas of expertise, but that doesn’t stop the inclination. Sometimes ideas from inexpert sources work because the originators don’t know "it can’t be done" and proceed to do it. I am quite familiar with several mature industries that have become so technically inbred, so steeped in traditional, "proven" methods, that innovative solutions just do not come from within the industry. One well known example is the steel industry (now mostly flown from our shores). It is a well established fact that all of the major innovations in the steel industry since the early twentieth century have come from outside the industry. I could provide many examples if there are those who would like them.

My point is that real, practical, innovative answers to all of our problems are probably surging through the minds of real, practical individuals all over this earth. I like to think of myself as being one who might just have some real workable answers. At least, I try. One of my "answers" is to our current energy crisis. I have outlined several broad approaches to alternative fuels, new vehicles and the required infrastructure that are practical, workable answers that can be accomplished in a relatively short time and at reasonable costs. (That’s what engineers do!) I have worked in the oil industry and am quite familiar with many problems and options now facing that industry.

My primary solution could, if properly implemented, remove our dependence on imported oil in as little as five (a crash program) or certainly within ten years. Already there are plants under construction and planned which would be an integral part of this plan. These plants are being designed and constructed with private capital, many right here in Indiana. While billions in government money is being poured down bottomless rat holes on pie-in-the-sky projects like the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, private, for profit companies are heading toward a real solution that will not only free us from dependence on foreign oil, but give us a substantial environmental benefit by greatly reducing the net emissions of carbon dioxide and provide new good paying jobs that currently are overseas. Go to these sites for more detailed information:

- http://cheapfuels.blogspot.com New Alternative Vehicle Fuels
- http://superfuel.blogspot.com The Tribrid vehicle - an Overview
- http://SUPERfueli.blogspot.com The Tribrid Vehicle Economy

If all the effort and negative publicity spent in condemning "Big Oil" were directed at this positive solution, "Big Oil" would be forced to change their ways and participate in the change over for economic reasons. That seems to me a far better way, force them to facilitate the changeover rather than fight it by supporting projects like the hydrogen economy which actually stands in the way of practical progress and ensures our dependence on oil for the foreseeable future.

Hand wringing, condemning, name calling, protesting, and all other negative efforts may get lots of media attention (don’t they love anger, pain and suffering), but only stands in the way of real solutions. This dangerous attitude of mine is really what is behind my rants, but it seems that only those parts of my writing with emotional content gets any attention from those on the right or left. I have no thought that my ideas and mine alone are the answer to all these questions, but at least I am trying. A little look at these ideas won’t hurt. They are quite apolitical, at least to my way of thinking. It’s just that they don’t directly condemn and vilify anyone that causes them to get so little attention. Think about this when you become embroiled in anger at words of mine with which you disagree.

Ho