THE FAT LITTLE DICTATOR'S MISSILE TUBES. Pts. 1-6

As I ‘set pen to paper’ the world has settled back into a not so easy peace; having just avoided what seemed to be the most perilous 24 hours since the Cuban Missile Crisis of just over half a century ago.

Speaking of missiles, what has transpired this weekend has a great deal to do with that topic. For you see, our newly elected president has been contending with the same complicated issue with which numerous former presidents have contended.

North Korea and its bellicose march towards confusion and calamity

It seems three generations of fat little dictators have perpetuated this foolishness. While twenty-five million of their countrymen barely have enough to eat, and suffer from trade sanctions which have grown steadily stricter, these little fat men have not only padded their own bank accounts, but have spent untold millions of dollars on military hardware; including missiles and atomic weapons.

President Trump recently made it known that a “naval armada” had set sail to help contradict the actions of the North Korean dictator. For as yesterday was the 105^th birthday of Kim II Sung, it was expected that the country would attempt a 6^th test of their fledgling atomic bomb.

And as you might readily conclude, the fat little grandson of Kim II has threatened to retaliate against South Korea, and the 30,000 American troops stationed there, if our military drops a cruise missile into their atomic practice shaft.

Pt. 2

While I have my compunctions about CNN, and avoid it when I possibly can, this network currently has one of the only American reporters stationed in that secluded country. And thus, I have been watching the admittedly excellent coverage he has been providing.

As the correspondent stands in the expansive square in Pyongyang, behind him multiplied thousands of soldiers and elaborately attired civilians hurriedly march past; respectively goose stepping and waving brightly colored pom poms above their heads. These affairs are meant to impress, (and it is commonly understood that the population of the capitol city are required to practice such mechanisms on a recurring basis).

As the massive flood of multi-colored humanity passes, they give way to an amazing presentation of military equipment. Camoflaged semi-trucks move slowly past the reporter. Just behind the cab sections are what appear to be gigantic missile tubes of perhaps 70 feet each. And, of course, there is an unstated implication that stored within these tubes are Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s); capable of delivering an atomic bomb to the western coastline of the United States.

CNN is ‘into’ panel discussions. Throughout the day and night panels of four, five and six men and women interact on a myriad of topics. (I cannot begin to imagine the annual moneys the network expends on their mostly liberal commentators).

And not to be denied, there have been a large number of panel discussions dedicated to the topic of a probable North Korean atomic bomb test; designed to coincide with old Kim II Sung’s birthday celebration.

Pt. 3

During one of those panel discussions the anchorperson asked one of the retired generals, (of which they have a beaucoup) perhaps this guy who goes by the moniker, “Spider Marx”,

“So General, we’ve been under the impression that North Korea couldn’t possibly have developed a functional ICBM by now, but is 2-3 years from completing a delivery system. What is your consensus on the matter?”

To which their so-called expert responded,

“Well, actually if they can develop the missile tube, or storage container, as we see they have done, it wouldn’t be that much harder to develop a functioning ICBM.”

If I had had a replay button I would have played that statement back a couple of thousand times; just to be sure I heard what my auditory system indicated I heard.

But I immediately thought,

“Come again?”

(and)

“Say what?”

And my subsequent thought was,

“Any Private First Class in any army of the world knows better than that!”

(and)

“How absolutely ludicrous and uninformed you are, General.”

(and)

“Not only does your line of thinking make absolutely no sense, but it is also widely believed that this 2^nd world country is also a few years out from miniaturizing a nuclear bomb which would fit on an ICBM.”

(and finally)

“I’m sorry, General. That’s bull malarkey in a chef’s salad.”

Pt. 4

Well, my friends, as I have previously indicated, the present presidential administration in this country has conjectured that North Korea was about to set off its latest atomic bomb test, as satellite and U-2 surveillance have indicated there has been a flurry of activity around the test site.

As it fell together, (and this is very relevant to the discussion) the little fat man in charge (LFMIC) attempted to launch one of his short-range missiles yesterday, in lieu of setting off “the big one.” It failed. The missile literally blew up on the launching pad.

However, to follow up on the general’s response which, in a nut shell, sounded approximately like,

“If you can build the container, you can just as easily build the thing that goes in it,” (namely, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile).

Well, I would have to respectfully (or the lack thereof) disagree. Just because Leonardo da Vinci built a box in which to put his sketches of a helicopter didn’t mean he was capable of producing a functioning helicopter. And, by the way, he never did; (though many of his theoretical inventions have, with various alterations, been built since he lived and moved and breathed on this planet).

And it follows suit that just because I manage to tape enough cardboard together to make a box large enough to hold a cure for cancer doesn’t mean I am capable of bringing such an undertaking to fruition.

Pt. 5

Did I mention my entire premise here has little or nothing to do with North Korea and its present nuclear arms program?

(Well, it doesn’t).

And, no doubt, you might immediately respond with,

“You sure could have fooled me.”

(and)

“You certainly took up a lot of time, effort and space to develop what seemed to be a persuasion that has nothing to do with, well, your persuasion.”

To which I would respond,

“Well now, let me see.”

(and)

Yes, it would certainly seem so.”

However, all that preceded the place in which we now find ourselves, though factual, serves as an allegory to where I am about to take you.

Give me the latitude to bring you back to a key concept we have previously examined, and that is, just because one can build a container in which to place something valuable or unique doesn’t mean one can necessarily build the thing which is to be stored within it.

I’m referring here to two similar, but divergent terms:

Reputation and Character

Think of the former as the box in which the latter resides.

Anybody can build a good reputation but constructing a good character, well now, as a notable person in our time once mused, that’s “a whole ‘nother country.” (Forrest Gump)

Pt. 6

Some key principles here

Reputation does not Character make. Nor does Character Reputation make.

Reputation might be thought of as the peeling on the fruit. It is that surface persuasion by which we are known by those with whom we have to do.

Character might be thought of as the fleshy tissue beneath the peeling. It may be imperceptible to the common observer, and initially, at least, may only be apparent to the individual and God, Himself.

As previously implied, Reputation and Character are not necessarily one and the same. They can be very much alike. They can be very different, indeed.

Character represents all that is true about the “real you;” be it good or bad. Whereas, Reputation may represent a faulty image of the “real you;” based simply on what people observe, and discover over the course of time.

Reputation may be maintained for as long as the hidden ingredients of our Character remain hidden.

Reputation may very well represent a lie others choose to believe.

Character is never a lie. Whether good, bad or indifferent we own the Character which we have, ourselves, created.

Reputation is hard won. Character is harder won still.

Reputation is apparent to everyone within our sphere of influence.

Reputation is subject to change, and may vary with the information to which any given individual is privy.

Reputation and Character may or may not be synonymous.

Reputation may represent the truth or a lie. Character is always true since Character is who we really are.

Character is established in private, is subject to change based on what we allow or disallow, and is the result of thousands of small choices made over a significant period of time.

Afterward

We return once again to an earlier premise

**Just because one can build a container in which to place something valuable or unique doesn’t mean one has necessarily built the thing which is to be stored within it.

Having completed my allegory, and in closing, suffice it to say that, while I think that fat little dictator’s reputation is bad, I have reason to think his character is emptier than his missile tubes.

By William McDonald, PhD. Excerpt from "(Mc)Donald's Daily Diary" Vol. 53. Copyright pending

If you wish to share, copy or save, please include this credit line.

***********If you would like to see the titles and access hundreds of my blogs from 2015 and 2016, do the following:  

Click on 2015 in the index to the right of this blog. When my December 31st blog, "The Shot Must Choose You" appears, click on the title. All my 2015 blog titles will come up in the right margin

Click on 2016 in the index to the right of this blog. When my December 31st blog, "Children of a Lesser God" appears, click on the title. All my 2016 blog titles will come up in the right margin