It has been about a month since my first posting discussing the second amendment. At this point, the first post has generated over 4700 hits, the second one about 3200. Amazingly, a significant number of those hits have been from overseas; over 3400 from Poland, 850 from China, 740 from the Ukraine, 570 from France. I am still seeing over a hundred hits per day between those two posts, but the audience is now mostly from the US. Strangely, the third post has garnered very little attention. I have no explanation for the popularity of these two posts but I am grateful knowing that so many people are interested in my thoughts.
As I have been contemplating this burst of activity, the thought of the birth lottery came to mind again. How fortunate I am to have been born in the United States during a time when global communication could be accomplished from one's living room. When we consider that great works of literature, ground breaking Scientific theories, advanced treatises on the law, society, love, government, etc., that were created before the internet may have taken months, even years before they reached the ears and minds of the masses, it is truly a wonder that I can post a few hundred words and within hours, days, a few weeks, thousands of people from all walks of life, cultures and countries can access my words. And a huge responsibility. I cannot say for sure that I am always as responsible with my thoughts as I could be, but I know there are those using this great tool of communication with complete disregard for the content and intent of their words. As a child, someone once told me that we should only say something to another that we would say to our mother. I recently printed out some of the stories I have written and posted on this blog, as well as some of the posts that have been the most accessed, and gave a copy to my mother. Perhaps those who fill the internet with tirades, hate, lies, mistruths, rumors and malice might be a bit less eager if they had their mom edit their work first.
But I stray from the topic. Or did I?
In my first birth lottery post, I discussed the simple fact that there are so many humans without the basic sanitary facilities and access to clean water that we, in America, take for granted. Truly, compared to the hundreds of millions of people on this planet who live in complete squalor and utter poverty with little hope of improving their lives, or even their children's' lives, the poor in America are much better off. As one of my good friends has said to me in the past, the truly poor of the world would give their right hand to live as the poor in America live. And we should be proud that our poor are so much better off than those of so many other countries, yet this should not be used as an excuse to ignore the fact that there are still those in America who go to sleep hungry at night and do not have access to routine health care services. Poverty is relative to one's surroundings, so while it may be true that America's poor may earn 1000 times the salary of those in Sri Lanka, it is also true that they need 1000 times the money to maintain even a basic standard of living within our borders.
For those of you who have cable TV, you may have discovered that their is a channel called the Wealth Channel. While I am sure that not all the shows on this channel merely depict excess wealth, there are a number that take us on tours of the homes and playgrounds of the rich. We get to see the oh so extravagant possessions of those who won an even bigger prize from the birth lottery. In some cases, even their pets were bigger birth lottery winners than most people! Yet, at the same time, it was recently documented that tens of millions of working Americans are paid less than $10 an hour. Those people work a year to earn what some on the Wealth Channel might spend on pet food.
Is it possible that some of the rich in America, having won the birth lottery by being born in a country where there is such great opportunities, are rigging the game in their favor? When the CEO's of our largest corporations earn an average of 380 times the average worker in their company, does that not tilt the randomness of the birth lottery to favor the winners even more?
I know, I can see some readers shaking their head and wondering why I disparage those who have earned their salaries, why I expect them to give up some of their rewards, how I imagine great people will continue to pursue greatness when they are penalized or hindered. Frankly, I don't. I would like them to realize how lucky they have been to have been born with such intelligence, ambition, drive, etc, and then to truly earn the title of a "great" person by working to help others as much as themselves. Really, how great is someone who achieves wealth at the expense of their fellow humans, whether it be through slashing the salaries of their employees or merely moving jobs overseas where expectations of salary are less? How great is a person who excels on the backs of others yet takes full credit for the success?
The birth lottery is about more than one's nationality. It is about more than one's innate intelligence, more than one's physical size or features, more than one's having been birthed with two arms and two legs, or no arms and no legs. The birth lottery is about recognizing that we have done nothing to earn where we were born, our genealogy, or even the time in history when we came into being. It is about being thankful for our life, humble in our achievements, and generous with our rewards knowing that a truly rich life is one in which the world is left a better place for where and when one was randomly born.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Final thoughts (for now) on the Second Amendment
One of the more compelling arguments, the one that generates the slick bumper sticker slogans like "When guns are illegal only criminals will have guns", is the thought that no matter what laws are passed restricting certain guns or types of magazines for guns, criminals will still violate those laws. Certainly, that logic makes sense. After all, there are guns laws on the books today that restrict felons from buying weapons, laws that build barriers to separate those who wish to own a gun legally from those for which a law, any law, does not matter.
To put it succinctly, only law abiding people obey the law, so no law will hinder a criminal from an act of crime or violence. Assuming these definitions are always consistent, that law abiding citizens always obey the law and criminals do not, then it makes perfect sense to believe that only law abiding citizens are hindered when new laws are created which restrict access to guns or types of guns.
So, if I am wrong on this account, that new, stricter gun laws are useless in the struggle to control gun violence, perhaps there are other laws just as pointless.
For instance, all the various driving laws such as how fast you can drive, when you should stop or go, where you can park, why you must have a license and register your car, etc. I know there are many people who violate these laws. These criminals clearly have no respect for them, and many, even when caught and fined, perhaps even when they lose their license through repeated violations, still disobey the laws. The only way to prevent them from driving safely, which is the intent of the laws, is to physically remove them from the street. Ah, yes, but how to do that if there aren't any law? Hmmm. So, one of the functions of the law seems to be a way to punish those who do not observe safe driving practices to the point that if they continue to do so, they can be jailed, for the safety of the community.
Or take rape. Clearly, we would prefer that rapes never occur. But, despite the law and severe punishment associated with this odious crime, there are still criminals who rape. I would imagine that if a politician or political pundit claimed that rape laws are ineffective because rape still exists, still occurs thousands of times a month, there may be some outcry. If that same person voted against further anti-rape laws because "when rape becomes illegal, only criminals will rape", he/she would be scorned, perhaps even recalled from office.
The question, the serious question we should be debating about gun laws, or any law for that matter, is whether its passage makes us safer. Does making assault weapons illegal or making multi-clip magazines illegal, make us safer? If you think that less weapons of this type in the hands of anyone, law abiding citizen or criminal, will reduce the chance of a law abiding citizen having his/her weapon stolen from them and used illegally, or will reduce the chance that a law abiding citizen will cross the line to criminal and use that weapon to kill, or will reduce the chance that a criminal will be able to purchase a weapon with such violent capability, then you should support such laws. Then, if someone violates the law, there will be a legal method of punishment and justice.
It is hard to know if gun control laws work because it is hard to know how many people who might have purchased a gun and used it for nefarious means have been stopped from doing so because of a law. I read an interesting statistic on a gun advocacy website that claimed that a majority of criminals said they would have avoided robbing, burgling, etc, a specific home if they knew the owner was armed. What was not asked these same criminals was if they would have avoided that home if they saw an ADT or some type of home security system in place. Or if they knew the owners had a big dog. I would also want to know how many criminals who did not use a gun would have used one if they knew they could get one more easily or if they knew the law against using a gun was less severe?
As I said in my last post, America is a violent nation. Guns, owning guns and using guns reflect our belief that might makes right. We love stories where the oppressed rains justice done on the oppressor through vigilante violence. Unfortunately, violence is most frequently used for reasons not so justifiable or inspiring. We need a cultural shift that recognizes that just as might, in the form of the bully on the playground, does not make right, so having the biggest gun does not lead to proper acts either.
Assault weapons and multi-clip magazines will one day be considered weapons for killing. Killing people. Killing many people, all at once, quickly. Children as well as adults. Once it is perceived that this is their only purpose, they will be banned, and then the cliché will be true:
"when assault weapons are illegal only criminals will have them".
To put it succinctly, only law abiding people obey the law, so no law will hinder a criminal from an act of crime or violence. Assuming these definitions are always consistent, that law abiding citizens always obey the law and criminals do not, then it makes perfect sense to believe that only law abiding citizens are hindered when new laws are created which restrict access to guns or types of guns.
So, if I am wrong on this account, that new, stricter gun laws are useless in the struggle to control gun violence, perhaps there are other laws just as pointless.
For instance, all the various driving laws such as how fast you can drive, when you should stop or go, where you can park, why you must have a license and register your car, etc. I know there are many people who violate these laws. These criminals clearly have no respect for them, and many, even when caught and fined, perhaps even when they lose their license through repeated violations, still disobey the laws. The only way to prevent them from driving safely, which is the intent of the laws, is to physically remove them from the street. Ah, yes, but how to do that if there aren't any law? Hmmm. So, one of the functions of the law seems to be a way to punish those who do not observe safe driving practices to the point that if they continue to do so, they can be jailed, for the safety of the community.
Or take rape. Clearly, we would prefer that rapes never occur. But, despite the law and severe punishment associated with this odious crime, there are still criminals who rape. I would imagine that if a politician or political pundit claimed that rape laws are ineffective because rape still exists, still occurs thousands of times a month, there may be some outcry. If that same person voted against further anti-rape laws because "when rape becomes illegal, only criminals will rape", he/she would be scorned, perhaps even recalled from office.
The question, the serious question we should be debating about gun laws, or any law for that matter, is whether its passage makes us safer. Does making assault weapons illegal or making multi-clip magazines illegal, make us safer? If you think that less weapons of this type in the hands of anyone, law abiding citizen or criminal, will reduce the chance of a law abiding citizen having his/her weapon stolen from them and used illegally, or will reduce the chance that a law abiding citizen will cross the line to criminal and use that weapon to kill, or will reduce the chance that a criminal will be able to purchase a weapon with such violent capability, then you should support such laws. Then, if someone violates the law, there will be a legal method of punishment and justice.
It is hard to know if gun control laws work because it is hard to know how many people who might have purchased a gun and used it for nefarious means have been stopped from doing so because of a law. I read an interesting statistic on a gun advocacy website that claimed that a majority of criminals said they would have avoided robbing, burgling, etc, a specific home if they knew the owner was armed. What was not asked these same criminals was if they would have avoided that home if they saw an ADT or some type of home security system in place. Or if they knew the owners had a big dog. I would also want to know how many criminals who did not use a gun would have used one if they knew they could get one more easily or if they knew the law against using a gun was less severe?
As I said in my last post, America is a violent nation. Guns, owning guns and using guns reflect our belief that might makes right. We love stories where the oppressed rains justice done on the oppressor through vigilante violence. Unfortunately, violence is most frequently used for reasons not so justifiable or inspiring. We need a cultural shift that recognizes that just as might, in the form of the bully on the playground, does not make right, so having the biggest gun does not lead to proper acts either.
Assault weapons and multi-clip magazines will one day be considered weapons for killing. Killing people. Killing many people, all at once, quickly. Children as well as adults. Once it is perceived that this is their only purpose, they will be banned, and then the cliché will be true:
"when assault weapons are illegal only criminals will have them".
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Even More Second Amendment Discussion
Life is full of surprises.
Last week I posted two entries on my blog. One was an examination of how psychology, in this case uncertainty vs certainty, effects our economy. I was very happy with its content and expression and thought it might generate some interactions. The other was a brief wrap up of my reaction to my local borough council's consideration of passing a resolution supporting the second amendment. I had posted my gut reaction at the local newspaper's comments area then, after checking if my comment had inspired any feedback, responded in kind to one particular reader's reaction to my words.
So, what is the surprise? The post about uncertainty, as of this moment, has generated 7 hits. The one with my second amendment comments has generated 1832 hits! Even more amazing, over 1100 of those hits have come from Poland!
Clearly, I cannot imagine that 1100 random Poles have discovered my blog. My assumption is that one or two individuals have shared my thoughts with their friends. To them I say, thanks, and if you would like to converse with me directly, feel free to email me at
jpugnetti@hotmail.com
Now, back to the discussion.
To my utmost disappointment, the United States Senate failed to pass any meaningful new gun control legislation. In the name of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" our legislators decided that protection of the American citizenry from assault weapons and multi-clip magazines, and from the inconvenience of a background check before buying a gun, was less important than a perceived erosion of the second amendment. I say perceived because there were no proposals which banned everyday American citizens from owning a gun for self-defense or recreation, just a suggestion that certain guns, whose only purpose is to kill multiple people quickly be banned. And that perhaps if we had a more universal background check, we may keep guns from those who have already committed a crime or who been deemed mentally unstable. Common sense restrictions which equate the ability to kill multiple people quickly as a danger to society and therefore place assault weapons and multi-clip magazines in the same category as tanks, bazookas and flame throwers.
Of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that Americans are a violent people. We rank first, by a large margin in guns owned per person (over 80 guns per 100 people), and very high in homicide rates. Violence is not just a byproduct of our right to bear arms, but a culturally accepted means to a variety of ends, whether that end be taking something without earning it, keeping what is mine, or convincing another country than our way of life is best.
We abhor those countries that sponsor terrorism, as well as we should, but then lead the world in producing weapons. We are a self proclaimed Christian nation that has seen the sales of guns skyrocket with the election of our first black president, along with the profits for gun manufacturers.
And then there is the Boston Marathon bombing. Within minutes, men and women, both civilian and police, did everything they could do to move victims to safety and protect those not injured. Then, through an amazingly coordinated effort by federal, state and local police, one of the bombers is killed and the other is captured. All across America, people stand and cheer, tears streaming for the victims, for justice being swift in the capture of the villains, and for the men and women in uniform who lived up to the motto of to protect and serve.
Funny, that all those people who are afraid of the government, who fear gun legislation in the belief that they may need their assault weapons in case the government comes to take their guns, funny that those obsessed with their right to keep and bear arms will be shooting the very same people they are cheering today, their local police, national guardsmen, FBI agents, etc, when we need to violently wrest our freedoms back from the government.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I believe I saw the "well regulated militia" in the form of our local, state and federal police in action in the events of the Boston Marathon bombing. I believe the security of the free state, in this case, the United States of America, is what shall not and must not be infringed.
I don't believe our right to bear arms assumes the right to be able to massacre fellow American citizens via assault weapons and multi-clip magazines.
Last week I posted two entries on my blog. One was an examination of how psychology, in this case uncertainty vs certainty, effects our economy. I was very happy with its content and expression and thought it might generate some interactions. The other was a brief wrap up of my reaction to my local borough council's consideration of passing a resolution supporting the second amendment. I had posted my gut reaction at the local newspaper's comments area then, after checking if my comment had inspired any feedback, responded in kind to one particular reader's reaction to my words.
So, what is the surprise? The post about uncertainty, as of this moment, has generated 7 hits. The one with my second amendment comments has generated 1832 hits! Even more amazing, over 1100 of those hits have come from Poland!
Clearly, I cannot imagine that 1100 random Poles have discovered my blog. My assumption is that one or two individuals have shared my thoughts with their friends. To them I say, thanks, and if you would like to converse with me directly, feel free to email me at
jpugnetti@hotmail.com
Now, back to the discussion.
To my utmost disappointment, the United States Senate failed to pass any meaningful new gun control legislation. In the name of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" our legislators decided that protection of the American citizenry from assault weapons and multi-clip magazines, and from the inconvenience of a background check before buying a gun, was less important than a perceived erosion of the second amendment. I say perceived because there were no proposals which banned everyday American citizens from owning a gun for self-defense or recreation, just a suggestion that certain guns, whose only purpose is to kill multiple people quickly be banned. And that perhaps if we had a more universal background check, we may keep guns from those who have already committed a crime or who been deemed mentally unstable. Common sense restrictions which equate the ability to kill multiple people quickly as a danger to society and therefore place assault weapons and multi-clip magazines in the same category as tanks, bazookas and flame throwers.
Of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that Americans are a violent people. We rank first, by a large margin in guns owned per person (over 80 guns per 100 people), and very high in homicide rates. Violence is not just a byproduct of our right to bear arms, but a culturally accepted means to a variety of ends, whether that end be taking something without earning it, keeping what is mine, or convincing another country than our way of life is best.
We abhor those countries that sponsor terrorism, as well as we should, but then lead the world in producing weapons. We are a self proclaimed Christian nation that has seen the sales of guns skyrocket with the election of our first black president, along with the profits for gun manufacturers.
And then there is the Boston Marathon bombing. Within minutes, men and women, both civilian and police, did everything they could do to move victims to safety and protect those not injured. Then, through an amazingly coordinated effort by federal, state and local police, one of the bombers is killed and the other is captured. All across America, people stand and cheer, tears streaming for the victims, for justice being swift in the capture of the villains, and for the men and women in uniform who lived up to the motto of to protect and serve.
Funny, that all those people who are afraid of the government, who fear gun legislation in the belief that they may need their assault weapons in case the government comes to take their guns, funny that those obsessed with their right to keep and bear arms will be shooting the very same people they are cheering today, their local police, national guardsmen, FBI agents, etc, when we need to violently wrest our freedoms back from the government.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I believe I saw the "well regulated militia" in the form of our local, state and federal police in action in the events of the Boston Marathon bombing. I believe the security of the free state, in this case, the United States of America, is what shall not and must not be infringed.
I don't believe our right to bear arms assumes the right to be able to massacre fellow American citizens via assault weapons and multi-clip magazines.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Certainty of Uncertainty
I am happy to report that I have had many conversations with people who disagree with my views, many generated by this blog or by the opinion letters that I have had published in the past few years. Most of these "conversation buddies" as I like to call them, are more conservative than I. No surprise there, but virtually all of the conversations have been civil. If regular people can discuss the important topics of the day, why can't we see more of this from our elected officials?
Anyway, one of the often quoted knocks on President Obama and his economic policies are that he has created uncertainty in the country, especially with the passing of the Affordable Care Act. The logic is as follows; businesses aren't hiring because of the uncertainty of how "Obamacare" will effect their bottom line. Additionally, the business community claims that the rising national debt also adds to their uneasiness about hiring. Hence, unemployment remains close to 8%, and the economy continues to grow slowly.
For those of you who do not know this, my job with the state of Pennsylvania is currently "under review" by our state legislators. They are in the process of deciding to dismantle the PLCB (my employer), or continue the modernization that has been ongoing, especially the last 10 years. Many of you who are aware of this situation, have emailed me good wishes and confidence that if I were to lose my job, I would be able to find something soon. Many people also commented that life can be like that, full of uncertainty, and that employment in the private sector is much more unstable than public employment what with all the corporate mergers and failing businesses.
In essence, what I am hearing is that uncertainty is the only certainty in business as well as in life.
So, if that is the mantra of the business world, then what is the problem? If it is common knowledge that the modern world is full of change, that there are no lifetime jobs anymore, that the next earthquake or terrorist attack is just around the corner, then what can President Obama do, what can anyone do to guarantee certainty?
My personal belief is that there are those in business who know the truth, that it is sales and the demand for their product or service that dictates hiring. When a company fears the loss of market share or sales revenue and determines that that loss can be eliminated via the expansion of staff, it is done regardless of what may come because if nothing else, companies can't afford to walk away from an uptick in sales just for the sake of a few more employees. They can always let a new person go, but cannot always get back that lost sale due to slow delivery times or inefficient service. I believe that they are not hiring because Wall Street is fine, and Main Street does not matter to them.
And then I thought about the time in America from 1945 to 1965. The time when the Cold War was at its height, everyday Americans were building bomb shelters in their backyards, and school kids were taught to hide under their desks in case of a nuclear attack. What was more uncertain than that? Yet, those twenty years saw a huge expansion of the economy via a growing middle class. Were people worried? Certainly. But it didn't stop them from creating new businesses, sending their kids to college, buying new homes, going on vacations... living life.
Even after 911, an incredibly heart wrenching event, not to mention a national slap in the face, we pressed on. Sure, we created a housing bubble as an overreaction to our dread, but at least we didn't stand on the sideline and whine about uncertainty!!
So, my advice to anyone who hears about uncertainty in the marketplace or spouts this trite vein of reasoning is MAN UP. This is America! We are supposed to be the greatest nation on earth, in history, and yet we are letting a little bit of uncertainty get in our way. If you want people to buy your product or service, there needs to be a population that has money to spend. To all those big corporations sitting on what is estimated to be a trillion dollars, hire someone. Get your tail out from between your legs and stop mouthing patriotism while outsourcing jobs overseas. Put Americans before your double digit profit and you might find that sacrificing a few percentage points today might result in even bigger growth tomorrow. Prove that America is your first priority not your precious golden parachute or multi-million dollar salary.
In the meantime, I am going to do my part despite the uncertainty of my job situation. I am going to invest in my kids college education, I am going to redo our upstairs bathroom, I am going to go out to dinner this weekend with my lovely wife, and I might even buy a bottle of spirits at my local PLCB outlet. What are you going to do?
Anyway, one of the often quoted knocks on President Obama and his economic policies are that he has created uncertainty in the country, especially with the passing of the Affordable Care Act. The logic is as follows; businesses aren't hiring because of the uncertainty of how "Obamacare" will effect their bottom line. Additionally, the business community claims that the rising national debt also adds to their uneasiness about hiring. Hence, unemployment remains close to 8%, and the economy continues to grow slowly.
For those of you who do not know this, my job with the state of Pennsylvania is currently "under review" by our state legislators. They are in the process of deciding to dismantle the PLCB (my employer), or continue the modernization that has been ongoing, especially the last 10 years. Many of you who are aware of this situation, have emailed me good wishes and confidence that if I were to lose my job, I would be able to find something soon. Many people also commented that life can be like that, full of uncertainty, and that employment in the private sector is much more unstable than public employment what with all the corporate mergers and failing businesses.
In essence, what I am hearing is that uncertainty is the only certainty in business as well as in life.
So, if that is the mantra of the business world, then what is the problem? If it is common knowledge that the modern world is full of change, that there are no lifetime jobs anymore, that the next earthquake or terrorist attack is just around the corner, then what can President Obama do, what can anyone do to guarantee certainty?
My personal belief is that there are those in business who know the truth, that it is sales and the demand for their product or service that dictates hiring. When a company fears the loss of market share or sales revenue and determines that that loss can be eliminated via the expansion of staff, it is done regardless of what may come because if nothing else, companies can't afford to walk away from an uptick in sales just for the sake of a few more employees. They can always let a new person go, but cannot always get back that lost sale due to slow delivery times or inefficient service. I believe that they are not hiring because Wall Street is fine, and Main Street does not matter to them.
And then I thought about the time in America from 1945 to 1965. The time when the Cold War was at its height, everyday Americans were building bomb shelters in their backyards, and school kids were taught to hide under their desks in case of a nuclear attack. What was more uncertain than that? Yet, those twenty years saw a huge expansion of the economy via a growing middle class. Were people worried? Certainly. But it didn't stop them from creating new businesses, sending their kids to college, buying new homes, going on vacations... living life.
Even after 911, an incredibly heart wrenching event, not to mention a national slap in the face, we pressed on. Sure, we created a housing bubble as an overreaction to our dread, but at least we didn't stand on the sideline and whine about uncertainty!!
So, my advice to anyone who hears about uncertainty in the marketplace or spouts this trite vein of reasoning is MAN UP. This is America! We are supposed to be the greatest nation on earth, in history, and yet we are letting a little bit of uncertainty get in our way. If you want people to buy your product or service, there needs to be a population that has money to spend. To all those big corporations sitting on what is estimated to be a trillion dollars, hire someone. Get your tail out from between your legs and stop mouthing patriotism while outsourcing jobs overseas. Put Americans before your double digit profit and you might find that sacrificing a few percentage points today might result in even bigger growth tomorrow. Prove that America is your first priority not your precious golden parachute or multi-million dollar salary.
In the meantime, I am going to do my part despite the uncertainty of my job situation. I am going to invest in my kids college education, I am going to redo our upstairs bathroom, I am going to go out to dinner this weekend with my lovely wife, and I might even buy a bottle of spirits at my local PLCB outlet. What are you going to do?
More Second Amendment Discussion
A quick follow up to my mention that my hometown was considering a resolution that would voice support for the second amendment. It passed this past week. I may not have mentioned it, but I had entered an online comment attached to the newspaper article about this resolution, so today I checked to see if my comment had generated any responses, and happily, found a number of interesting discussions. As a result, I added the following paragraph to a response directed specifically to my original comment:
Thanks for the compliment about not being foolish but just sounding foolish. It is a bit more civil than your back and forth with Susan B,,,. We are all Americans here, let's try to disagree without name calling because that is how our perspectives lose their sincerity.
I have often heard about our wonderful constitution and bill of rights having been divinely inspired. Not sure if that is what you mean when you say your rights come from your Creator. If so, you may want to read the Magna Carta which was "inspired" in 1066 (I think). It may be the first document which put into words rights of free men.
If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should review the life of Jesus, the greatest liberal of all. My recollection is that he did not carry a weapon, other than his powerful example of loving one another. If you believe that he is one and the same as our Creator, one of the triad of the Holy Trinity, then you might want to rethink your premise that only through violence, through the right to bear arms and fight those we disagree with, do our freedoms result.
And, if you really believe that freedoms can only be gained or maintained through violence, then I wonder if you would be OK with the gay community shooting up some heterosexual hangouts to win their rights to marry as opposed to their endless battle through the courts to gain their rights through legal means. Or, perhaps you would have preferred Martin Luther King promote active, violent resistance when he marched and lobbied for equal rights at a time in America when there were separate water fountains, rest rooms and places on the bus for blacks.
Our freedoms, our wonderful freedoms that emanated from the American colonies were debated, often vociferously, by men of logic, men who owned slaves, men of abundance, men of morality. Men, perhaps also inspired and supported by their wives who had to remain behind the scenes, but men nonetheless. I would hope that our Creator nodded in agreement when she saw what they had done, knowing that we still had a way to go, but were on the right track.
Thanks for the compliment about not being foolish but just sounding foolish. It is a bit more civil than your back and forth with Susan B,,,. We are all Americans here, let's try to disagree without name calling because that is how our perspectives lose their sincerity.
I have often heard about our wonderful constitution and bill of rights having been divinely inspired. Not sure if that is what you mean when you say your rights come from your Creator. If so, you may want to read the Magna Carta which was "inspired" in 1066 (I think). It may be the first document which put into words rights of free men.
If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should review the life of Jesus, the greatest liberal of all. My recollection is that he did not carry a weapon, other than his powerful example of loving one another. If you believe that he is one and the same as our Creator, one of the triad of the Holy Trinity, then you might want to rethink your premise that only through violence, through the right to bear arms and fight those we disagree with, do our freedoms result.
And, if you really believe that freedoms can only be gained or maintained through violence, then I wonder if you would be OK with the gay community shooting up some heterosexual hangouts to win their rights to marry as opposed to their endless battle through the courts to gain their rights through legal means. Or, perhaps you would have preferred Martin Luther King promote active, violent resistance when he marched and lobbied for equal rights at a time in America when there were separate water fountains, rest rooms and places on the bus for blacks.
Our freedoms, our wonderful freedoms that emanated from the American colonies were debated, often vociferously, by men of logic, men who owned slaves, men of abundance, men of morality. Men, perhaps also inspired and supported by their wives who had to remain behind the scenes, but men nonetheless. I would hope that our Creator nodded in agreement when she saw what they had done, knowing that we still had a way to go, but were on the right track.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Here a gun, there a gun
I was recently taken aback by the news that my local borough council is considering the enactment of a second amendment resolution that would, in effect, say that any new gun control legislation passed by the federal or state government would not be recognized by my little town. I am still trying to understand if that includes universal back ground checks, but I am sure it includes a ban on assault weapons and large magazine clips.
Additionally, I recently read a letter to the editor of a paper I occasionally read in which the letter writer posited that we need more guns in the hands of good guys, so that we could counter the effects of guns being wielded by those in the bad guy category.
Obviously, I will never understand the logic that states the more guns there are, the less crime there will be. I do understand that a rationally thinking criminal will avoid a house or victim if they know that home or victim has a loaded gun aimed and ready to shoot them if they intrude. And I do know of potential victims who avoided being victimized by fighting back, either by the presence of a gun, a big bat, or a vicious looking dog. I do not discount that that there is a certain amount of protection that is granted if someone is known to carry a loaded weapon.
But how does the gun know the shooter is a good guy or bad guy? I have seen futuristic movies in which a gun will not work unless it is fired by the owner's whose palm prints have been recorded in the gun's memory. But even then, what if the good guy up until now gets really pissed off and shoots his wife? It is not uncommon for the victim of a deadly shooting to have known the killer. Do we assume that they deserved to be shot because they know bad people, or is it possible that good people make poor decisions, including when and how to use deadly force?
I have heard it said that if someone wants to kill you, they will, so assault weapons bans are not needed. But if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, why do want to give him/her the perfect weapon to do so? I would much rather be attacked by a maniac with a knife then someone with an automatic weapon. In fact, I just read of an incident where a crazy did just that, and he wounded a bunch of people. Wounded. Not killed. I am sure if he had the same weapon as the Sandy Hook Elementary attacker did, the number of hurt would be higher and the wounded term would say killed.
And then there is the concept of death by friendly fire. This is the awful event where a soldier is killed by one of his own troops. Happens very frequently, not because the accidental killers are bad guys, but because war is hell, as they say, and under the stress of the intense activities of an actual battle in war, mistakes happen, decisions are not always well considered, and good people die at the hands of other good people.
What is ironic about my town council debating the second amendment resolution, is that about a year ago a police officer in our area killed an unarmed man in the middle of the day. The man was certainly not innocent, and was certainly perceived as a threat to the public at the time. But many wondered why deadly force had to be used, if wounding or even stunning the victim might have been more appropriate. That perhaps, the officer, a suburban officer who may have never, and might not ever fire his weapon again in the course of his police career, might have acted in the heat of the moment. A good guy who got caught up in a moment that ultimately cost the life of a man who was not bad as much as mentally unstable.
Finally, if more guns make us safer, does that apply to the ultimate gun, a nuclear weapon? Should we supply all our friends, all the good nations with a nuclear weapon? If so, who are our friends and which are good? We trade openly with Saudi Arabia and China, are they friends who we trust with a nuclear weapon to not use on us, or just acquaintances who we are OK to give our money to but not a nuclear weapon. How about Germany or Japan. Friend? Just 60 years ago, they were certainly not our friends but I think we trust them now. But what if 60 years from now they are no longer our friends? Do we get back the nuclear weapon under some sort of return policy once-friendship-is- dissolved waiver?
I know, I am moving into the realm of the absurd. But frankly, the idea that only good guys should have guns seems as absurd to me.
Bad guys get guns and use them against the innocent. Let's do all we can to keep guns out of their hands by enacting universal background check legislation, and requiring all gun owners to register their gun upon purchase and loss, to wait at least 5 days before getting a gun permit so good people are less likely to make poor decisions in the heat of the moment, and require all gun owners to attend a safety class so they know how to handle, store and fire their weapon safely. It is no more than we do to get a driver's license.
As for assault weapons and multi round magazines, make them illegal as soon as possible. Their only purpose is to kill large numbers of people. Add them to the ban on grenade launchers, flame throwers, tanks, and all the other weapons of mass destruction that, frankly, shouldn't be allowed anywhere but which are grudgingly accepted to be necessary for war.
And, for those who believe that the second amendment is at stake, wake up. There are no proposals, no laws in consideration that will prevent Americans from owning a gun. The second amendment is not under attack. As my brother likes to say, follow the money and you will find that it is big munitions companies that are filling the airwaves with these stories, this entire red herring of Obama taking away our guns, while they rake in obscene profits; and while American citizens, including the innocents at Sandy Hook, are killed.
Additionally, I recently read a letter to the editor of a paper I occasionally read in which the letter writer posited that we need more guns in the hands of good guys, so that we could counter the effects of guns being wielded by those in the bad guy category.
Obviously, I will never understand the logic that states the more guns there are, the less crime there will be. I do understand that a rationally thinking criminal will avoid a house or victim if they know that home or victim has a loaded gun aimed and ready to shoot them if they intrude. And I do know of potential victims who avoided being victimized by fighting back, either by the presence of a gun, a big bat, or a vicious looking dog. I do not discount that that there is a certain amount of protection that is granted if someone is known to carry a loaded weapon.
But how does the gun know the shooter is a good guy or bad guy? I have seen futuristic movies in which a gun will not work unless it is fired by the owner's whose palm prints have been recorded in the gun's memory. But even then, what if the good guy up until now gets really pissed off and shoots his wife? It is not uncommon for the victim of a deadly shooting to have known the killer. Do we assume that they deserved to be shot because they know bad people, or is it possible that good people make poor decisions, including when and how to use deadly force?
I have heard it said that if someone wants to kill you, they will, so assault weapons bans are not needed. But if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, why do want to give him/her the perfect weapon to do so? I would much rather be attacked by a maniac with a knife then someone with an automatic weapon. In fact, I just read of an incident where a crazy did just that, and he wounded a bunch of people. Wounded. Not killed. I am sure if he had the same weapon as the Sandy Hook Elementary attacker did, the number of hurt would be higher and the wounded term would say killed.
And then there is the concept of death by friendly fire. This is the awful event where a soldier is killed by one of his own troops. Happens very frequently, not because the accidental killers are bad guys, but because war is hell, as they say, and under the stress of the intense activities of an actual battle in war, mistakes happen, decisions are not always well considered, and good people die at the hands of other good people.
What is ironic about my town council debating the second amendment resolution, is that about a year ago a police officer in our area killed an unarmed man in the middle of the day. The man was certainly not innocent, and was certainly perceived as a threat to the public at the time. But many wondered why deadly force had to be used, if wounding or even stunning the victim might have been more appropriate. That perhaps, the officer, a suburban officer who may have never, and might not ever fire his weapon again in the course of his police career, might have acted in the heat of the moment. A good guy who got caught up in a moment that ultimately cost the life of a man who was not bad as much as mentally unstable.
Finally, if more guns make us safer, does that apply to the ultimate gun, a nuclear weapon? Should we supply all our friends, all the good nations with a nuclear weapon? If so, who are our friends and which are good? We trade openly with Saudi Arabia and China, are they friends who we trust with a nuclear weapon to not use on us, or just acquaintances who we are OK to give our money to but not a nuclear weapon. How about Germany or Japan. Friend? Just 60 years ago, they were certainly not our friends but I think we trust them now. But what if 60 years from now they are no longer our friends? Do we get back the nuclear weapon under some sort of return policy once-friendship-is- dissolved waiver?
I know, I am moving into the realm of the absurd. But frankly, the idea that only good guys should have guns seems as absurd to me.
Bad guys get guns and use them against the innocent. Let's do all we can to keep guns out of their hands by enacting universal background check legislation, and requiring all gun owners to register their gun upon purchase and loss, to wait at least 5 days before getting a gun permit so good people are less likely to make poor decisions in the heat of the moment, and require all gun owners to attend a safety class so they know how to handle, store and fire their weapon safely. It is no more than we do to get a driver's license.
As for assault weapons and multi round magazines, make them illegal as soon as possible. Their only purpose is to kill large numbers of people. Add them to the ban on grenade launchers, flame throwers, tanks, and all the other weapons of mass destruction that, frankly, shouldn't be allowed anywhere but which are grudgingly accepted to be necessary for war.
And, for those who believe that the second amendment is at stake, wake up. There are no proposals, no laws in consideration that will prevent Americans from owning a gun. The second amendment is not under attack. As my brother likes to say, follow the money and you will find that it is big munitions companies that are filling the airwaves with these stories, this entire red herring of Obama taking away our guns, while they rake in obscene profits; and while American citizens, including the innocents at Sandy Hook, are killed.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
The Supreme Court considers Gay Marriage
Happy Easter everyone! Despite being a lapsed Catholic, I am deeply appreciative of the example that the life of Jesus demonstrates for us; a life of love and tolerance to all people. Whether you believe he was the son of God or just an advanced spiritual soul who represents the best that humans can achieve, here is hoping that his story continues to inspire the rest of us to be the best person we can be. (By the way, I just realized that the phrase his story is the word history with a space between his and story. Makes you go hmmm).
Towards that end, the Supreme Court considered legal arguments this past week on two laws which address gay marriage in America. The first is related to the challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, and is a relatively modest one of whether the federal government must provide benefits to same-sex couples married in states that allow such unions. The case did not directly concern whether there is a right to same-sex marriage in other states. Two federal appeals courts had struck it down, and the court almost always reviews decisions from lower courts invalidating federal laws. Conventional wisdom held that this "stepping-stone" case would set the stage for the bigger battles ahead.
But, rather than waiting for a decision in the DOMA challenges, the court also chose to hear the more ambitious case which involves a challenge against California's proposition 8 which bans gays marriage. This law was struck down by a lower court which, in essence, ruled that the law violated the United States Constitution's guarantees for equal treatment under the law.
I have more than once stated in past blogs that I believe that gay marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. Consequently, I have no doubt that sometime in the future, perhaps as soon as 20 years from now, we will look at all this topic and shake our collective heads out of embarrassment that we allowed such blatant discrimination. That we behaved so unlike Jesus's teachings dictate.
Curiously, on a recent two hour car ride with my 21 year old son, we discussed the Supreme Courts upcoming ruling on gay marriage. I expressed the concern that there were too many Catholics on the court and that their decision would reflect their religion as opposed to their interpretation of the law. He rightfully called me on my prejudice, reminding me that whatever their ruling, the justification would most certainly be based on law, and that, and he was adamant about this point, we must certainly believe that their decision would be based on laws and reason or our faith in the ultimate court of our country would be tainted, if not forever lost. While I reminded him that past Supreme Court decisions legalizing discrimination based on color were, in fact, upheld, he again, reiterated that even those odious decisions were based on the laws of the time and had reason and logic as a basis, however wrong it appears in the light of history.
So, that being said, how might the Supreme Court rule in this cases. One interesting bit of dialogue that came from last week's proceedings suggested that perhaps the court decided in haste to rule on same sex marriage, that they should have waited until they ruled on other cases which might establish precedents leading up to the BIG decision. As I just recently learned, apparently the court's choice of which cases to hear, is determined by four votes. In other words, a majority does not have to decide to hear a case. Since the current Supreme Court is composed of 4 conservative justices, 4 liberal justices, and one whose vote swings between the two, Justice Kennedy, it is interesting to wonder which "side" decided to hear the same sex ban case. Or, did Justice Kennedy himself provide the 4th vote for one side of the other? Did the conservative justices draft Kennedy in hopes of swinging him now, when popular support of same sex marriage is beginning to become the majority? In other words, establish a precedent before the issue garners overwhelming popular support. Or, did the liberal justices approach Kennedy to help establish once and for all that denying marriage to two consenting adults in America is contrary to both our beliefs in the rights of the individual and the those rights as granted by the Constitution itself. (Since the information specifying who voted to bring this case is not available for public eyes at this time, I find discussion of who may have voted to do so an interesting side light to the case itself).
Anyway, I strayed off topic. How might the Supreme Court rule? I think it is a slam dunk that the Court will rule that withholding federal benefits to those married in states that allow gay marriage is unconstitutional. This will follow other states rights interpretations that have emanated from this Court.
I expect that once ruled, other cases will follow that build on that decision, eventually leading to rulings that disallow any federal law that treats benefits to same sex couples in a way that is different for heterosexual couples, married or not. Which, hopefully, will eliminate the incredibly unfair treatment that partners and children of same sex relationships experience in areas ranging from medical visitation rights to estate tax laws.
But, the tricky question of whether the Constitution of the United States guarantees the rights of the gay/lesbian community to marry the person they love? I think this decision will be more of a backhanded decision rather than a straight forward yes. It is my belief that the Court will decide that states cannot disallow same sex marriage. Just as there used to be laws against interracial marriage that were ruled to be in violation of the Constitution, the Court will rule that there cannot be laws that rule against same sex unions. Perhaps this is the same thing, but, legally speaking, the Constitution does not guarantee anyones's right to marry, as far as I am aware, so the ruling must fall on the what you can't do as opposed to what you can.
That being said, I am not sure that this particular Court will make that ruling now. I don't think they can rule that marriage discrimination is legal, so there may be some intermediate step that they take. They may decide that each state can decide the issue for themselves, but that decision might not necessarily be a ban as enacted at the polls but may include the right for a particular states' Supreme Court to rule one way or another. In other words, bans that are the result by referendum or legislative act must still be upheld by that states' highest court ruling. A sort of kick the can down the highway approach.
However, should the Court rule against marriage discrimination, and returning to my son's point, there will most likely be a dissenting view of these rulings. What form will it take? What laws will be referenced as precedent, what logic employed to fashion a multi-page paper on why these decisions are wrong?
Since I cannot adequately present such a defense, perhaps those reading this post will provide me with some logic. How does barring same sex marriage make sense legally? How does allowing same sex marriage violate the reason that laws exist; protection of a country's citizens? My initial perspective is that such logic will have to reference religion so I am eager to hear dissenting viewpoints on this topic.
In the meantime, here's hoping that the Supreme Court finds the wisdom to make the right decisions in these cases, and if that right choice includes a religious component it will reflect the words of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount when he offered us the Golden Rule:
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you.
Towards that end, the Supreme Court considered legal arguments this past week on two laws which address gay marriage in America. The first is related to the challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, and is a relatively modest one of whether the federal government must provide benefits to same-sex couples married in states that allow such unions. The case did not directly concern whether there is a right to same-sex marriage in other states. Two federal appeals courts had struck it down, and the court almost always reviews decisions from lower courts invalidating federal laws. Conventional wisdom held that this "stepping-stone" case would set the stage for the bigger battles ahead.
But, rather than waiting for a decision in the DOMA challenges, the court also chose to hear the more ambitious case which involves a challenge against California's proposition 8 which bans gays marriage. This law was struck down by a lower court which, in essence, ruled that the law violated the United States Constitution's guarantees for equal treatment under the law.
I have more than once stated in past blogs that I believe that gay marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. Consequently, I have no doubt that sometime in the future, perhaps as soon as 20 years from now, we will look at all this topic and shake our collective heads out of embarrassment that we allowed such blatant discrimination. That we behaved so unlike Jesus's teachings dictate.
Curiously, on a recent two hour car ride with my 21 year old son, we discussed the Supreme Courts upcoming ruling on gay marriage. I expressed the concern that there were too many Catholics on the court and that their decision would reflect their religion as opposed to their interpretation of the law. He rightfully called me on my prejudice, reminding me that whatever their ruling, the justification would most certainly be based on law, and that, and he was adamant about this point, we must certainly believe that their decision would be based on laws and reason or our faith in the ultimate court of our country would be tainted, if not forever lost. While I reminded him that past Supreme Court decisions legalizing discrimination based on color were, in fact, upheld, he again, reiterated that even those odious decisions were based on the laws of the time and had reason and logic as a basis, however wrong it appears in the light of history.
So, that being said, how might the Supreme Court rule in this cases. One interesting bit of dialogue that came from last week's proceedings suggested that perhaps the court decided in haste to rule on same sex marriage, that they should have waited until they ruled on other cases which might establish precedents leading up to the BIG decision. As I just recently learned, apparently the court's choice of which cases to hear, is determined by four votes. In other words, a majority does not have to decide to hear a case. Since the current Supreme Court is composed of 4 conservative justices, 4 liberal justices, and one whose vote swings between the two, Justice Kennedy, it is interesting to wonder which "side" decided to hear the same sex ban case. Or, did Justice Kennedy himself provide the 4th vote for one side of the other? Did the conservative justices draft Kennedy in hopes of swinging him now, when popular support of same sex marriage is beginning to become the majority? In other words, establish a precedent before the issue garners overwhelming popular support. Or, did the liberal justices approach Kennedy to help establish once and for all that denying marriage to two consenting adults in America is contrary to both our beliefs in the rights of the individual and the those rights as granted by the Constitution itself. (Since the information specifying who voted to bring this case is not available for public eyes at this time, I find discussion of who may have voted to do so an interesting side light to the case itself).
Anyway, I strayed off topic. How might the Supreme Court rule? I think it is a slam dunk that the Court will rule that withholding federal benefits to those married in states that allow gay marriage is unconstitutional. This will follow other states rights interpretations that have emanated from this Court.
I expect that once ruled, other cases will follow that build on that decision, eventually leading to rulings that disallow any federal law that treats benefits to same sex couples in a way that is different for heterosexual couples, married or not. Which, hopefully, will eliminate the incredibly unfair treatment that partners and children of same sex relationships experience in areas ranging from medical visitation rights to estate tax laws.
But, the tricky question of whether the Constitution of the United States guarantees the rights of the gay/lesbian community to marry the person they love? I think this decision will be more of a backhanded decision rather than a straight forward yes. It is my belief that the Court will decide that states cannot disallow same sex marriage. Just as there used to be laws against interracial marriage that were ruled to be in violation of the Constitution, the Court will rule that there cannot be laws that rule against same sex unions. Perhaps this is the same thing, but, legally speaking, the Constitution does not guarantee anyones's right to marry, as far as I am aware, so the ruling must fall on the what you can't do as opposed to what you can.
That being said, I am not sure that this particular Court will make that ruling now. I don't think they can rule that marriage discrimination is legal, so there may be some intermediate step that they take. They may decide that each state can decide the issue for themselves, but that decision might not necessarily be a ban as enacted at the polls but may include the right for a particular states' Supreme Court to rule one way or another. In other words, bans that are the result by referendum or legislative act must still be upheld by that states' highest court ruling. A sort of kick the can down the highway approach.
However, should the Court rule against marriage discrimination, and returning to my son's point, there will most likely be a dissenting view of these rulings. What form will it take? What laws will be referenced as precedent, what logic employed to fashion a multi-page paper on why these decisions are wrong?
Since I cannot adequately present such a defense, perhaps those reading this post will provide me with some logic. How does barring same sex marriage make sense legally? How does allowing same sex marriage violate the reason that laws exist; protection of a country's citizens? My initial perspective is that such logic will have to reference religion so I am eager to hear dissenting viewpoints on this topic.
In the meantime, here's hoping that the Supreme Court finds the wisdom to make the right decisions in these cases, and if that right choice includes a religious component it will reflect the words of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount when he offered us the Golden Rule:
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Bigger may not be better
There is a series of commercials being run by a communications company that capitalizes on the belief that faster is better, bigger is better, doing more than one thing at a time is better. These commercials feature a man sitting at a school table with 4 or 5 young children, perhaps 5 or 6 years old. In each case, the man asks a question of the kids and they respond.
My perception is that most people have a similar reaction to these commercials as I did; cute. Out of the mouths of babes, kind of truths. The old proverb, you learned everything you needed for life in kindergarten. I guess it plays on our belief that there are simple answers to the complicated aspects of life. Chances are, most people do not think anything more of these ads. Perhaps that is the issue that needs to be addressed; why don't we think beyond the obvious, but that is grist for another blog.
My focus here is the belief that bigger is better. There is ample evidence that the forces behind the tea party phenomenon and the concept that drives the attacks on the size and influence of the federal government have life because of the belief that bigger is not better. That we need a smaller federal government, a decreasing influence by the government over our lives.
What seems odd about the bigger is not better when it comes to government crowd, is that they don't seem to apply that same patriotic fervor in the area of business?
When one huge corporation merges with another, generally speaking the stock of both companies goes up. The business perspective says that duplication of effort, whether in the area of accounting or transportation or sales, will be eliminated, thereby reducing costs, thereby increasing profits. In other words, jobs eliminated means a stronger bottom line. Is this good for America?
If a town changes from one with dozens of small businesses on main street to one with a Walmart superstore, does that improve the community? Do the previous store owners now work at Walmart for lower pay, less benefits, and less job satisfaction? Is bigger better merely because prices are lower?
Is the tenet, what is good for business, good for America true, if the business employs low wage labor selling imported products made by even lower wage labor? Of if that same business demands low margin pricing from its vendors regardless of the fact that those vendors must now reduce cost, frequently labor costs, of its own employees, to provide that price?
And what do we do when those same big businesses, those that promote less government in the form of less regulation yet also demand special tax breaks for moving their company into a state or community in exchange for the promise of jobs? Does this not place the concept of competition in the free enterprise system on its ear if they are rigging the contest by having tax advantages that their smaller competitors do not? And, if they can make a corporate decision to limits hours to less than 30 to reduce the cost of benefits, does this not improve their bottom line by passing the burden of their employees medical insurance needs to both their employees and the government agencies which will need to supplement those costs? How much does the success of a company like Walmart cost the American economy in government assistance for its employees, and suppressed wages for its employees and those of its vendors?
The truly sad part is that it is precisely the consumer's shopping choices to spend their limited dollars at these big box stores that enhance the cycle of degrading middle class salaries. More small business lose out, more people have less money to spend since they must take lower wage jobs, more vendors must keep their labor costs down to afford the privilege of selling their products to these big box stores, allowing those huge corporations to keep their prices low thereby attracting the consumers who don't have much choice but to buy the least expensive products available.
Which then brings me to bigger wages. Why is it OK for wages at the top of the scale to have continued to rise while those in the middle and below have barely stayed even with inflation? Why do CEO's make hundreds of times the salary of their employees now where they made only 20, 30, 40 times a mere 30 years ago? And, does that trend make America better or worse?
I am willing to listen to those who claim that big government is an issue that needs to be addressed as long as they do not use that same big government to gain competitive advantages in the market place, or want to gut environmental regulations that keep America from looking like a 3rd world country with polluted rivers and skies, and as long as they are willing to apply the bigger is not always better philosophy to the business community as well.
My perception is that most people have a similar reaction to these commercials as I did; cute. Out of the mouths of babes, kind of truths. The old proverb, you learned everything you needed for life in kindergarten. I guess it plays on our belief that there are simple answers to the complicated aspects of life. Chances are, most people do not think anything more of these ads. Perhaps that is the issue that needs to be addressed; why don't we think beyond the obvious, but that is grist for another blog.
My focus here is the belief that bigger is better. There is ample evidence that the forces behind the tea party phenomenon and the concept that drives the attacks on the size and influence of the federal government have life because of the belief that bigger is not better. That we need a smaller federal government, a decreasing influence by the government over our lives.
I understand this viewpoint when it comes to all of us being more self-reliant, and less dependent on government for food and shelter. What can we do for ourselves should be our first thought as opposed to what can I get from someone else, especially Uncle Sam. Safety nets used as a bridge between jobs, or to attain medical services when need outstrips resources, or to improve the daily lives of children whose only crime was to be born in the wrong economic circumstances, should be just that, safety nets, not a way of life.
Scamming as a way to earn one's living, whether the victim be an elderly neighbor or uneducated immigrant or government agency is wrong. My problem with less government is that some forces behind this push are doing so, not because they believe what I have detailed above, but because they seek a free hand to conduct their business in any fashion they feel will deliver the biggest profit. Regulations that keep them from polluting our air and water as a matter of convenience become the target but always cached in the all American axiom that what is good for business, helps America.
What seems odd about the bigger is not better when it comes to government crowd, is that they don't seem to apply that same patriotic fervor in the area of business?
When one huge corporation merges with another, generally speaking the stock of both companies goes up. The business perspective says that duplication of effort, whether in the area of accounting or transportation or sales, will be eliminated, thereby reducing costs, thereby increasing profits. In other words, jobs eliminated means a stronger bottom line. Is this good for America?
If a town changes from one with dozens of small businesses on main street to one with a Walmart superstore, does that improve the community? Do the previous store owners now work at Walmart for lower pay, less benefits, and less job satisfaction? Is bigger better merely because prices are lower?
Is the tenet, what is good for business, good for America true, if the business employs low wage labor selling imported products made by even lower wage labor? Of if that same business demands low margin pricing from its vendors regardless of the fact that those vendors must now reduce cost, frequently labor costs, of its own employees, to provide that price?
And what do we do when those same big businesses, those that promote less government in the form of less regulation yet also demand special tax breaks for moving their company into a state or community in exchange for the promise of jobs? Does this not place the concept of competition in the free enterprise system on its ear if they are rigging the contest by having tax advantages that their smaller competitors do not? And, if they can make a corporate decision to limits hours to less than 30 to reduce the cost of benefits, does this not improve their bottom line by passing the burden of their employees medical insurance needs to both their employees and the government agencies which will need to supplement those costs? How much does the success of a company like Walmart cost the American economy in government assistance for its employees, and suppressed wages for its employees and those of its vendors?
The truly sad part is that it is precisely the consumer's shopping choices to spend their limited dollars at these big box stores that enhance the cycle of degrading middle class salaries. More small business lose out, more people have less money to spend since they must take lower wage jobs, more vendors must keep their labor costs down to afford the privilege of selling their products to these big box stores, allowing those huge corporations to keep their prices low thereby attracting the consumers who don't have much choice but to buy the least expensive products available.
Which then brings me to bigger wages. Why is it OK for wages at the top of the scale to have continued to rise while those in the middle and below have barely stayed even with inflation? Why do CEO's make hundreds of times the salary of their employees now where they made only 20, 30, 40 times a mere 30 years ago? And, does that trend make America better or worse?
Bigger companies need smarter CEO's and more intelligent decisions to navigate such huge corporations in today's economy. I understand that, but if the cost is to suppress the salaries of everyday Americans, then is the country better for having to require to pay for such geniuses, hence to have such huge corporations?
I am willing to listen to those who claim that big government is an issue that needs to be addressed as long as they do not use that same big government to gain competitive advantages in the market place, or want to gut environmental regulations that keep America from looking like a 3rd world country with polluted rivers and skies, and as long as they are willing to apply the bigger is not always better philosophy to the business community as well.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Birthday activities and news
Yesterday was my birthday, number 55. A quick calculation yields the fact that I have been alive for a bit over 20,000 days. Considering that one or two days is such a small fraction of the overall 20,000, it is important to keep one's perspective at the events of any one day, knowing the number of days that have preceded and the number of days to follow.
That being said, I decided a few weeks ago to continue my recently revived tradition of not working on my birthday. In fact, I decided to not work at the liquor store on my birthday and today, and to not work tonight at my 2nd job. My hope was to get some things done that I have had to put off.
As is true of most plans, I didn't really get anything done that I wanted. Other priorities trumped my plans, including driving my son 2 hours each way to his girlfriends house so they can return to college together, filing our 2012 federal tax return, walking the dog, and having a nice take home dinner and movie with my wife and son. As always in life, we must be flexible to changes.
Unfortunately, the bad news that I have received during these two days, the news that will challenge my ability to change, is that my job will most likely be eliminated soon. As a state worker, my employment is subject to our elected officials, and those public servants are in the process of taking Pennsylvania out of the wine and spirits business.
I would like to think that this decision, which effects me so personally, would make me just as unhappy as a taxpayer, and a concerned citizen for our decreasing access to good paying middle class jobs. Certainly, when our elected officials make decisions that effect us directly, we are more involved, more informed. But I believe that my past blogs discussing the slow decline of the American middle class, would have spurred me to compose this blog, perhaps with a bit less urgency, but composed none-the-less.
So, why am I against the government getting out of the liquor business? Certainly, I am aware of the problems that exist in the current PLCB system. But they do not seem any different than those I have encountered in my past jobs in the private sector. Mistakes are made, inefficiencies are revealed, decisions are made to address those problems and solutions are put into place. In the end, I expect that, just as a private business is evaluated on its profit margin, level of customer satisfaction, employee loyalty, advancement opportunities, etc, so might the PLCB have been evaluated.
Profit? Every year $75-100 million is returned to the state coffers in profit.
Customer satisfaction? The vast majority of my customers express their gratitude for the assistance they receive at my store, from choosing the appropriate libation to finding an item I do not stock at a neighboring store
Employee loyalty? It is not even worth comparing the turnover rate at the PLCB when compared to most retail businesses. I have worked with dozens of people with 25 or more years of experience, something you will not see at your local pharmacy or department store. That loyalty is also reflected in the low theft rate, a rate that most retail outlets would die for. Of course, that is what happens when you pay your employees a decent wage.
Advancement opportunities? After working 20 years part time, I went full time 3 years ago and am now a manager at a store.
Anyone not familiar with the PLCB might now ask, why change it then if it works so well? One answer comes from those who believe that the government does not belong in the regulation and sale of any item. That the selling would best be accomplished via the free market system. I can't say that I can argue against that concept. For the most part, the free enterprise system works well and if we were starting from scratch, I would be on board. But in this case, we have a system in place that works. A few thousand Pennsylvanians have a good salary with good benefits while working for an organization that generates a profit for the state. It seems like change for the sake of change.
My other answer as to why change, the one that will sound cynical and conspiratorial is that the private sector forces at work to make this change are only interested in the profit that they currently don't have, and those politicians who are voting for the change are expecting their own share of that profit or have already received large "donations" to vote in this fashion. Obviously, other than a well groomed sense of cynicism when it comes to big business buying legislators, I have no direct proof, yet. But, as the details are released, as the licenses are sold, it will be curios to see how many are gobbled up by corporations and businesses that have a strong presence in the halls of Harrisburg.
For my part, I will continue to work hard at my store and root out the details of this privatization plan. Perhaps I will be proven wrong and myself or some of my fellow PLCB employees will get a shot at a license and ownership of a store. Sadly though, I know that in the end, many of those people whom I have worked with over the years will be out of work, or worse, doing the same job with lower compensation and less benefits for a business or company that values its profit over their well-being and loyalty.
Still, I am ever hopeful that humans will continue to evolve towards an understanding that might does not make right, that making millions of dollars does not make one rich, and that leaving the world a better place, regardless of the scope of one's world, is the point of this life.
That being said, I decided a few weeks ago to continue my recently revived tradition of not working on my birthday. In fact, I decided to not work at the liquor store on my birthday and today, and to not work tonight at my 2nd job. My hope was to get some things done that I have had to put off.
As is true of most plans, I didn't really get anything done that I wanted. Other priorities trumped my plans, including driving my son 2 hours each way to his girlfriends house so they can return to college together, filing our 2012 federal tax return, walking the dog, and having a nice take home dinner and movie with my wife and son. As always in life, we must be flexible to changes.
Unfortunately, the bad news that I have received during these two days, the news that will challenge my ability to change, is that my job will most likely be eliminated soon. As a state worker, my employment is subject to our elected officials, and those public servants are in the process of taking Pennsylvania out of the wine and spirits business.
I would like to think that this decision, which effects me so personally, would make me just as unhappy as a taxpayer, and a concerned citizen for our decreasing access to good paying middle class jobs. Certainly, when our elected officials make decisions that effect us directly, we are more involved, more informed. But I believe that my past blogs discussing the slow decline of the American middle class, would have spurred me to compose this blog, perhaps with a bit less urgency, but composed none-the-less.
So, why am I against the government getting out of the liquor business? Certainly, I am aware of the problems that exist in the current PLCB system. But they do not seem any different than those I have encountered in my past jobs in the private sector. Mistakes are made, inefficiencies are revealed, decisions are made to address those problems and solutions are put into place. In the end, I expect that, just as a private business is evaluated on its profit margin, level of customer satisfaction, employee loyalty, advancement opportunities, etc, so might the PLCB have been evaluated.
Profit? Every year $75-100 million is returned to the state coffers in profit.
Customer satisfaction? The vast majority of my customers express their gratitude for the assistance they receive at my store, from choosing the appropriate libation to finding an item I do not stock at a neighboring store
Employee loyalty? It is not even worth comparing the turnover rate at the PLCB when compared to most retail businesses. I have worked with dozens of people with 25 or more years of experience, something you will not see at your local pharmacy or department store. That loyalty is also reflected in the low theft rate, a rate that most retail outlets would die for. Of course, that is what happens when you pay your employees a decent wage.
Advancement opportunities? After working 20 years part time, I went full time 3 years ago and am now a manager at a store.
Anyone not familiar with the PLCB might now ask, why change it then if it works so well? One answer comes from those who believe that the government does not belong in the regulation and sale of any item. That the selling would best be accomplished via the free market system. I can't say that I can argue against that concept. For the most part, the free enterprise system works well and if we were starting from scratch, I would be on board. But in this case, we have a system in place that works. A few thousand Pennsylvanians have a good salary with good benefits while working for an organization that generates a profit for the state. It seems like change for the sake of change.
My other answer as to why change, the one that will sound cynical and conspiratorial is that the private sector forces at work to make this change are only interested in the profit that they currently don't have, and those politicians who are voting for the change are expecting their own share of that profit or have already received large "donations" to vote in this fashion. Obviously, other than a well groomed sense of cynicism when it comes to big business buying legislators, I have no direct proof, yet. But, as the details are released, as the licenses are sold, it will be curios to see how many are gobbled up by corporations and businesses that have a strong presence in the halls of Harrisburg.
For my part, I will continue to work hard at my store and root out the details of this privatization plan. Perhaps I will be proven wrong and myself or some of my fellow PLCB employees will get a shot at a license and ownership of a store. Sadly though, I know that in the end, many of those people whom I have worked with over the years will be out of work, or worse, doing the same job with lower compensation and less benefits for a business or company that values its profit over their well-being and loyalty.
Still, I am ever hopeful that humans will continue to evolve towards an understanding that might does not make right, that making millions of dollars does not make one rich, and that leaving the world a better place, regardless of the scope of one's world, is the point of this life.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Fracking, poverty, and sharing the wealth
Been busy the last few weeks. I generally try to post on my day off from work, but last week Nora and I went to the Philadelphia Flower Show on that day. We had a great time! Took the train in, walked the show, stopped at the PLCB exhibit to sample some new wines and liquors, took the train home. For those of you who have flower shows in your area, I highly recommend spending some time at one, especially now, coming out of winter as we are.
I was also busy with birthdays. JW turned 21 last Tuesday, Rachel turned 18 two days previous. While JW is away at college, we did have a family birthday celebration at our house for Rachel. My how the time has passed. Soon, Rachel will also be away at school and it will be Nora and I again, with Bubba, of course.
Despite my lack of posting, the blog continues to be accessed at an increasing rate. Over 2100 hits in February, already over 1000 this month. Thanks to all those who are just discovering my blog, and to those who were there "in the beginning".
March's National Geographic had an interesting article about fracking. Since it was called The Promise and Risk of Fracking, I was hoping for a pro and con opinion piece concerning this important subject. Here is a link to the article.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/bakken-shale-oil/dobb-text
A number of details struck me as I read the article. Clearly, this new found energy source is an important discovery for America. Think about the savings we might find if we reduced or eliminated our need for oil. Would we even have troops in the Middle East? Would we have spent money on the Gulf War or the Iraq War? Would we worry about ignoring the human rights violations of our Saudi friends if we didn't need their oil?
And, what about the jobs, temporary as they might be? Jobs mean reduced unemployment rolls, increased tax revenue. Two important ingredients towards reigning in our growing national debt. Of course, like all situations in life, there is never only a good side to consider. So many small towns will be affected by the influx of big rigs and mostly male labor camps. Will the benefits outweigh the costs for these towns? For those whose homes stand on the land under which this new found energy is buried? What of those who choose not to rent or sell their rights? Do they even have a choice if they are surrounded by the noise and development of their neighbors' YES to these lease rights?
And, once the gas is extracted, what responsibility do the oil and gas companies bear for the eventual abandonment of those small towns for a rush to the next boom town, or boom mineral, or boom discovery. If the example of the coal industry's use and destruction of the land and towns and those people promised jobs but not told about black lung, short life spans, and the economic devastation when the coal runs out, then perhaps we need to weigh those costs to our bottom line calculations. Short term vs long term thinking. If it is true that corporations are more concerned about short term results, then who is going to present the viewpoint of the longer term?
It is a complicated issue. Both sides have data and positive reasons to support their perspective. As we continue researching the pros and cons of fracking let's keep in mind that all decisions have consequences. Allowing important decisions to be made and environments to be altered in ways not fully understood must be made by the people who will be affected the most. That means giving them all the data, including what, exactly, is being pumped into the ground beneath them. And, perhaps, providing them with a bit more compensation so that when the boom ends, they will have a rainy day fund with which to rebuild.
Which brings me to poverty. March's Smithsonian had an interesting pictorial viewpoint of the Earth with regards to how developed or undeveloped it is. But in this case, development was measured in terms of income, life expectancy, literacy. The map itself was titled "Illuminating Inequality".
I was also busy with birthdays. JW turned 21 last Tuesday, Rachel turned 18 two days previous. While JW is away at college, we did have a family birthday celebration at our house for Rachel. My how the time has passed. Soon, Rachel will also be away at school and it will be Nora and I again, with Bubba, of course.
Despite my lack of posting, the blog continues to be accessed at an increasing rate. Over 2100 hits in February, already over 1000 this month. Thanks to all those who are just discovering my blog, and to those who were there "in the beginning".
March's National Geographic had an interesting article about fracking. Since it was called The Promise and Risk of Fracking, I was hoping for a pro and con opinion piece concerning this important subject. Here is a link to the article.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/bakken-shale-oil/dobb-text
A number of details struck me as I read the article. Clearly, this new found energy source is an important discovery for America. Think about the savings we might find if we reduced or eliminated our need for oil. Would we even have troops in the Middle East? Would we have spent money on the Gulf War or the Iraq War? Would we worry about ignoring the human rights violations of our Saudi friends if we didn't need their oil?
And, what about the jobs, temporary as they might be? Jobs mean reduced unemployment rolls, increased tax revenue. Two important ingredients towards reigning in our growing national debt. Of course, like all situations in life, there is never only a good side to consider. So many small towns will be affected by the influx of big rigs and mostly male labor camps. Will the benefits outweigh the costs for these towns? For those whose homes stand on the land under which this new found energy is buried? What of those who choose not to rent or sell their rights? Do they even have a choice if they are surrounded by the noise and development of their neighbors' YES to these lease rights?
And, once the gas is extracted, what responsibility do the oil and gas companies bear for the eventual abandonment of those small towns for a rush to the next boom town, or boom mineral, or boom discovery. If the example of the coal industry's use and destruction of the land and towns and those people promised jobs but not told about black lung, short life spans, and the economic devastation when the coal runs out, then perhaps we need to weigh those costs to our bottom line calculations. Short term vs long term thinking. If it is true that corporations are more concerned about short term results, then who is going to present the viewpoint of the longer term?
It is a complicated issue. Both sides have data and positive reasons to support their perspective. As we continue researching the pros and cons of fracking let's keep in mind that all decisions have consequences. Allowing important decisions to be made and environments to be altered in ways not fully understood must be made by the people who will be affected the most. That means giving them all the data, including what, exactly, is being pumped into the ground beneath them. And, perhaps, providing them with a bit more compensation so that when the boom ends, they will have a rainy day fund with which to rebuild.
Which brings me to poverty. March's Smithsonian had an interesting pictorial viewpoint of the Earth with regards to how developed or undeveloped it is. But in this case, development was measured in terms of income, life expectancy, literacy. The map itself was titled "Illuminating Inequality".
Of course, the United States and much of North America was a bright yellow, the highest level of development. Europe, Australia, the same. South America featured much yellow but also much darker shades. Africa, as you can imagine, was mostly darkly shaded. Why is it that while Americans routinely throw out hundreds of pounds of food per year, millions of children die of starvation and malnutrition? After all, we are all riding together on this spaceship we call Earth. Yet we create artificial boundaries to justify keeping to ourselves, or keeping from others, the abundant natural resources that Earth has to offer.
If we can't create a plan to share the wealth which is resulting from the fracking revolution, share the wealth with fellow Americans whose land is being mined to produce this energy, then how can we even approach the thought of a plan to distribute the wealth of this planet to all its inhabitants?
Where does our short term and long term thinking take us within the scope of such a plan?
Or, at the end of the day, is it better to eschew the trappings of the modern world and stay apart from them, as detailed in Smithsonian's article about the lost tribes of the Amazon. People who have purposefully chosen to stay isolated. People who saw other tribes swallowed up by the modern world, and made extinct by the process. When all is said and done, when we are finally visited upon by our alien neighbors in space, will they find grand skyscrapers, high speed railways, and other magnificent man-made creations, or isolated populations of small bands of people who survived our selfish rush to more, more, more.
If we can't create a plan to share the wealth which is resulting from the fracking revolution, share the wealth with fellow Americans whose land is being mined to produce this energy, then how can we even approach the thought of a plan to distribute the wealth of this planet to all its inhabitants?
Where does our short term and long term thinking take us within the scope of such a plan?
Or, at the end of the day, is it better to eschew the trappings of the modern world and stay apart from them, as detailed in Smithsonian's article about the lost tribes of the Amazon. People who have purposefully chosen to stay isolated. People who saw other tribes swallowed up by the modern world, and made extinct by the process. When all is said and done, when we are finally visited upon by our alien neighbors in space, will they find grand skyscrapers, high speed railways, and other magnificent man-made creations, or isolated populations of small bands of people who survived our selfish rush to more, more, more.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The Sequester
I thought it might be a good idea to do some research on the latest Washington manufactured crisis; the sequester. For those of you who are not aware of what is happening, and judging by polls and in the street samplings, that includes almost 3 out of 4 Americans, this particular sequester refers to the automatic budget cuts that will kick in this Friday, March 1st, if Congress does not send an alternate plan to the president before then. Of course, part of the problem, part of the reason this situation even exists is the American voters lack of participation in the governing process, lack of follow-up to see how our elected officials actually behave/vote, but no lack of cynicism and apathy concerning our democratic processes. Consequently, when this newest "day of doom" was created in 2012 when Obama and Boehner failed to agree on the Grand Bargain that they had worked on, we all yawned, chalked it up to another example of party politics trumping the good of our country, and, believe it or not, re-elected the vast majority of our Congressmen, those same people for whom we allegedly held a 10% approval rating.
I won't say, we get the governance we deserve, but....
Anyway, with all the talk about the immediate $85 billion in spending cuts, along with the extended 10 year $1.2 trillion in cuts, I thought it best to try to find where, exactly, these cuts were to occur. Which Americans might actually suffer as a result of these cuts, which were spared, and would it be good for America. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. As stated in the below link which I found as factual as any, "there are several guides, but we have to warn you: it's less like sitting in an easy chair and more like wandering through a dark, unlit dungeon." Isn't that wonderful! There do appear to be a few areas that can be winnowed out of the morass that is this sequester, and the federal budget itself, and I will comment on a few of them below. But first, take a few minutes and click on the link below to read one perspective of this latest attempt by our political parties to "win" without completely ruining the American middle class in particular, and the economy in general.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/22/us-sequester-guide-spending-cuts
For all the gnashing of teeth emanating from the Pentagon, it surprises me that they can't take a $42 billion cut from their over $600 billion budget. It is about 2/3 of one percent. Especially considering that 2013 and 2014 will see a reduction of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. While it may not be the same perspective, my paycheck was just reduced by over 2% when the 2 year social security reduced contribution plan expired on December 31st. Still, I am bothered to think what percentage of this savings will come from furloughs of hard working middle class Americans as opposed to a hit in the profits of some of our more overpaid defense contractors and/or elimination of unnecessary weapons systems .
As for all the cuts to domestic programs that help low income citizens, provide for child care, help fund Head Start, etc, its seems that one of our favorite past times when trying to balance the budget is to hammer the "young and powerless", while refusing to even consider means testing to reduce benefits and tax breaks for those who don't require them. At the end of the day, again, middle class people will bear the brunt of the cuts while asking of the rich only that they make the difficult decision as to which low salaried employees to lay off. Poor babies.
Clearly, it is easy to discern that I am unhappy with the high percentage of cuts that affect the most disadvantaged among us. Frankly, it is obscene, and completely belies the fantasy that we are a Christian nation. To add further insult to injury, I found the following history of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP. In a nutshell, it illustrates how our corporate tax structure, or lack thereof, allows corporations to enjoy the freedoms of America, the profits that they gain from the purchases of goods and services by our everyday citizens, even grants them the status of individuals as ruled by the Supreme Court in the area of political donations, yet excuses them from paying anywhere near the same percentage of taxes that individual Americans pay.
Now, I know that I am fond of saying that you can use statistics to prove virtually anything so we should always be careful to look askance at conclusions that derive solely from one statistic, but this history of tax receipts chart as compared to GDP shows that there was a time when corporations paid a similar aggregate amount of taxes as individuals, in fact paid more so during certain years as detailed by the chart. The stark reality is that the corporate tax contribution has remained at or below 2.7% since 1980, and, in fact below 2% nineteen of the last 32 years, while individual tax receipts have been over 8% nineteen of those same 32 years.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
The sequester, for all its bad decisions and bull-in-a-china-shop approach to our budget problems, attempts to stem the tide of red ink that has resulted from the two non-funded overseas conflicts in the middle east, tax cuts that benefited the wealthy, a horrible recession that threw millions of Americans off the rolls of taxpayers and onto the rolls of the various assistance programs (a kind of double whammy), and an aging population that reduces those contributing to social security and medicare while requiring more outlays from those two important programs. Sadly, it does so, not through adult decision making, compromises, and shared sacrifices, but by targeting those least likely to host a $1000 a plate dinner.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
The Most Hated President
I have struggled to post these past few months. Sure, with the holidays and working a second job again, my time is limited. But limited time to write has always been part of my day and it didn't interfere in the past. A bit of sadness pervades my psyche since the passing of my father in December, but life's experiences, the highs and the lows, are generally good fodder for the creative process. My current theory is that it is due to post presidential election doldrums. The debates, the sound bites, the crazy political ads, the apathy of the electorate, the ever widening range of opinion as displayed by the far right and far left, provided a treasure trove of blog topics. Also, perhaps, the fact that we had an election, America spoke, yet our elected officials in Washington seemed to have not heard, or continue to ignore us is adding to my lack of inspiration. Hopefully, I will emerge from this lethargy soon, as I am sure my "audience" hopes as well.
Speaking of audience, and despite the lack of interest in and reduced quantity of my recent posts, my blog has been getting "hits" at a remarkable pace this month. In particular, my post from last August, Back to the Future, has skyrocketed into the top 5 of my most read posts. It appears much of the renewed interest in this post is from foreign lands. Last month a bunch of people in France accessed this post and this month Sweden seems to have discovered it. So, for the first time I will provide a link within a post to access a post that is being read, dare I say it, around the world.
http://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/08/back-to-future.html
With no real research or discussions with historians, I have concluded after reading the current issue of Smithsonian, that the most hated president in our brief history was, drum roll please, Abraham Lincoln. See link below.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Unsuccessful-Plot-to-Kill-Abraham-Lincoln-187172301.html
We all know that President Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. But what do we know about the ongoing plots to kill him that preceded that successful attempt? The article above details an assassination plot targeting Lincoln before he took office after winning the election of 1860. I will leave the telling of the story to the fine writer from the Smithsonian. What really struck me was the level of hatred that emanated from many Americans, especially those with Southern viewpoints. This animosity was so prevalent that the writer describes scenes in public places where discussions about killing Lincoln could be discerned without much effort. Now, of course, Lincoln is considered one of our greatest presidents, his likeness enshrined on our currency and Mt. Rushmore. It is certainly interesting how, at the end of the day, history and time are the best judges of the stature and rightness of our elected officials.
For those of you who may have suspected that this post would be about our current president, there is certainly a link. I read recently that the number of death threats received by the president and his family is up three fold from the previous president. Clearly, the perspective that Lincoln would eventually free the slaves was a huge factor in the level of dislike that the South had for him. Imagine, a culture where those of dark skin were nothing more than a tool for working the fields, caring for the livestock, and cooking meals. Possessions to be bought and sold like horses or hay. Now imagine the outrage of those who truly believed in this state of man, even perhaps thought it was God's will, who are now faced with the very real possibility that a directive from Washington, a place much further away geographically as well as culturally in those days, might order those possessions to be set free. IT CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, would certainly be their only reaction.
We have come a long way since those days. African Americans fill important roles in our business community, spiritual hallways, and, obviously our political chambers. But there is still an undercurrent of hatred for this "colored man" who dares to tell us what to do. It has been demonstrated in the disrespect exhibited by certain GOP Congressmen and it is spewed daily on our public air waves.
It seems especially transparent in the area of gun control. Since Obama took office, the amount of guns and ammunition sold in this country is unbelievable. In some munitions companies, even a third shift hasn't provided the labor to keep up with demand. Paradoxically, this increase has, in some cases, worked to limit/delay access to guns due to a back order situation. Much of this renewed sense of arming oneself begins as a reasonable distrust for the government, but then blooms into a full blown paranoia that the government, the United States government, is anti-people and anti-Constitution. For some, especially those only a generation or two from descendants that believed in the separation of the races, this perspective is all the more easily embraced with a black president in office. The fact that there has been no suggested policies or alterations to the 2nd Amendment at any time by the Obama Administration does not matter to those who constantly beat the drum of fear that law abiding citizens will lose their right to own a gun if Obama has his way. For some this drum beat means big profits. For others a growing organization which means a stronger lobby.
In a previous blog I posed the ridiculous notion that some of the more extreme gun enthusiasts are preparing for the day when zombies come down their driveway to steal their food and children. Unfortunately, some believe it will be armies of black men doing the bidding of their black president that will be coming for them.
The good news is that I continue to have high hopes for both my president and my country. Obama is now, finally, actively engaged in our generation's civil rights fight, to grant the same rights and privileges to our gay and lesbian citizens while recent victories at the polls show that the populace is also moving forward. Additionally, providing access to health care insurance continues to be a priority of the Obama Presidency. While there are many GOP governors who refuse to do the right thing for their constituents, as everyday Americans realize that they do not have to choose between bankruptcy and dying, between health insurance industry profits and necessary health services, I feel confident that we will realize the importance of the richest nation on earth being known, not for the number of its citizens without insurance coverage, but for the strength demonstrated by its leaders and populace to make health care insurance for all a priority.
History may show that President Obama was one of the most hated presidents of all time. More importantly, we should all hope as Americans, that, like Lincoln, history also reveals him to be one of our best as well.
Speaking of audience, and despite the lack of interest in and reduced quantity of my recent posts, my blog has been getting "hits" at a remarkable pace this month. In particular, my post from last August, Back to the Future, has skyrocketed into the top 5 of my most read posts. It appears much of the renewed interest in this post is from foreign lands. Last month a bunch of people in France accessed this post and this month Sweden seems to have discovered it. So, for the first time I will provide a link within a post to access a post that is being read, dare I say it, around the world.
http://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/08/back-to-future.html
With no real research or discussions with historians, I have concluded after reading the current issue of Smithsonian, that the most hated president in our brief history was, drum roll please, Abraham Lincoln. See link below.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Unsuccessful-Plot-to-Kill-Abraham-Lincoln-187172301.html
We all know that President Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. But what do we know about the ongoing plots to kill him that preceded that successful attempt? The article above details an assassination plot targeting Lincoln before he took office after winning the election of 1860. I will leave the telling of the story to the fine writer from the Smithsonian. What really struck me was the level of hatred that emanated from many Americans, especially those with Southern viewpoints. This animosity was so prevalent that the writer describes scenes in public places where discussions about killing Lincoln could be discerned without much effort. Now, of course, Lincoln is considered one of our greatest presidents, his likeness enshrined on our currency and Mt. Rushmore. It is certainly interesting how, at the end of the day, history and time are the best judges of the stature and rightness of our elected officials.
For those of you who may have suspected that this post would be about our current president, there is certainly a link. I read recently that the number of death threats received by the president and his family is up three fold from the previous president. Clearly, the perspective that Lincoln would eventually free the slaves was a huge factor in the level of dislike that the South had for him. Imagine, a culture where those of dark skin were nothing more than a tool for working the fields, caring for the livestock, and cooking meals. Possessions to be bought and sold like horses or hay. Now imagine the outrage of those who truly believed in this state of man, even perhaps thought it was God's will, who are now faced with the very real possibility that a directive from Washington, a place much further away geographically as well as culturally in those days, might order those possessions to be set free. IT CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, would certainly be their only reaction.
We have come a long way since those days. African Americans fill important roles in our business community, spiritual hallways, and, obviously our political chambers. But there is still an undercurrent of hatred for this "colored man" who dares to tell us what to do. It has been demonstrated in the disrespect exhibited by certain GOP Congressmen and it is spewed daily on our public air waves.
It seems especially transparent in the area of gun control. Since Obama took office, the amount of guns and ammunition sold in this country is unbelievable. In some munitions companies, even a third shift hasn't provided the labor to keep up with demand. Paradoxically, this increase has, in some cases, worked to limit/delay access to guns due to a back order situation. Much of this renewed sense of arming oneself begins as a reasonable distrust for the government, but then blooms into a full blown paranoia that the government, the United States government, is anti-people and anti-Constitution. For some, especially those only a generation or two from descendants that believed in the separation of the races, this perspective is all the more easily embraced with a black president in office. The fact that there has been no suggested policies or alterations to the 2nd Amendment at any time by the Obama Administration does not matter to those who constantly beat the drum of fear that law abiding citizens will lose their right to own a gun if Obama has his way. For some this drum beat means big profits. For others a growing organization which means a stronger lobby.
In a previous blog I posed the ridiculous notion that some of the more extreme gun enthusiasts are preparing for the day when zombies come down their driveway to steal their food and children. Unfortunately, some believe it will be armies of black men doing the bidding of their black president that will be coming for them.
The good news is that I continue to have high hopes for both my president and my country. Obama is now, finally, actively engaged in our generation's civil rights fight, to grant the same rights and privileges to our gay and lesbian citizens while recent victories at the polls show that the populace is also moving forward. Additionally, providing access to health care insurance continues to be a priority of the Obama Presidency. While there are many GOP governors who refuse to do the right thing for their constituents, as everyday Americans realize that they do not have to choose between bankruptcy and dying, between health insurance industry profits and necessary health services, I feel confident that we will realize the importance of the richest nation on earth being known, not for the number of its citizens without insurance coverage, but for the strength demonstrated by its leaders and populace to make health care insurance for all a priority.
History may show that President Obama was one of the most hated presidents of all time. More importantly, we should all hope as Americans, that, like Lincoln, history also reveals him to be one of our best as well.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Aha! Moments
To me, one of the most underrated of moments in life is the AHA! moment. Some AHA! moments are emotional, such as the exact time and place that you first saw your spouse to be. For me, that was a day involving a sad neighbor lamenting about spoiled chicken in a closed apartment on a hot summer day.
Some AHA! moments are intellectual in nature. In the world of Science they are often called Eureka moments, and many great inventions and discoveries have resulted from such unexpected occurrences. If you spend time with children, either as a parent, teacher or caregiver, you can witness on a daily basis, AHA! moments; new ideas, new skills, new understandings abound as they develop and grow. Unfortunately, it seems that we experience less of these moments as we age, or at least we perceive less of them. Or perhaps, we just forget how to recognize them. Or worse how to appreciate them.
I recently recognized two AHA! moments which I would like to share.
The first involves my eyesight, and more specifically my glasses. As many maturing individuals of my age group, I have in recent years had difficulty reading with my prescription glasses which, for all my life have been fashioned to address my myopia. So, as I had seen my dad do so often in his life, I would remove my regular glasses to read. At one point, about 5 years ago, I had a pair of prescription glasses made that enabled me to read which led to my having to carry them around when I anticipated the necessity. I also kept the standard prescription glasses that I had before my current strength version because they allowed me to see in the middle range; something I needed when I was delivering newspapers from fall 2010 to spring 2012. So, ridiculous as it may seem, I had three pairs of glasses that I used for different reasons.
The obvious answer, of course, was to put aside my pride and be fitted for that dreaded, old age indicator; bifocals. I finally succumbed late last year, but due to the holidays and the events surrounding my dad's illness and death, I did not pick them up right away. Avoidance of the inevitable, one might say.
Well, I am glad to say that once I did drag myself back to the eye doctor to pick up the new glasses, I experienced an amazing AHA! moment. I had decided on the progression style of bifocals; no visible line in the middle of the lenses. As the young lady who placed them on my head instructed me, I just had to point my nose at what I wanted to see and AHA!, I could see it clearly. My own personal version of point and click. No more reading glasses, no more intermediate glasses, no more removing my primary glasses to read small print; just point and click. Obviously, there have been some minor issues, but all in all, my new glasses are wonderful and I rue the time I spent avoiding the decision to make the leap to bifocals. (Perhaps another AHA! related to facing ones aging).
The second AHA! moment involves the discovery of a new magazine to read. I first encountered the knowledge that it existed in a recent issue of Smithsonian which ran a brief piece on a man named Lewis H. Lapham who has been publishing a quarterly magazine for about 5 years. Each issue focuses on one topic and draws on comments, essays and opinions about that topic from all of written history.
After reading about the man and his magazine, I went on the website and, as in that stupid commercial for V8, I smacked myself in the head and exclaimed; AHA!
Perhaps this is an overstatement, but I felt like the cave person who discovered how to control fire. Not just because it appeared to be an amazing discovery, but because it made me wonder how I lived before its discovery. To be more specific, I began to wonder how I could have possibly thought that I knew anything about anything before this revelation concerning Lapham's Quarterly.
Since this was just before Christmas, I ordered a back issue for my son and a year subscription for my wife for Christmas knowing full well that I would also be able to read each issue myself.
(See link below if you wish to check out info concerning this publication)
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/
So, with bated breath I awaited both the arrival of my son's back issue, Christmas morning when he would open it, and both his and my wife's reaction when they could peruse its contents. AHA!'s all around!!
A quick diversion here. As some might know, but most of you do not, I work for a Wine and Spirits Store. In the larger scheme of things, I generally excuse this line of work as a way to support my family and provide me with the opportunity to write. What I am saying is that I don't consider this line of work all that important compared to careers that involve teaching, serving the public good, and/or improving the lives of others. Don't get me wrong, I still do my best to help my customers choose the correct libation, while providing them with a safe, clean, friendly environment in which to do so. But as for making a difference in someone's life...
So, much to my surprise, the very first issue that my wife receives of Lapham's Quarterly is titled Intoxication and includes essays from as diverse a list of notables as you could imagine. Lincoln, Cato, Harp Marx, Socrates. Words from times before the age of Christ to as recent as 2008. Opinions as to the good, the bad, the highs and lows of humankind's experiments with both the mind blowing and the everyday modes of altering one's mood and perception. I have only just begun reading the issue, but already feel a bit better about my function as a purveyor of fine wines and spirits, and the importance of this commodity in history of man. Granted, its still not the spiritual uplifting that I hope that I might occasionally provide via my writing. But it isn't just sloppy drunks on a Friday night either.
AHA! moments; priceless.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Lesser known heroes
In my last post I mentioned a number of outstanding individuals who are actively working to improve the world. What impressed me the most was that for the most part, these modern day heroes were engaged in their various activities, not for fame and money, but because they truly believe that it is part and parcel to what it means to be human. Don't get me wrong, I admire the efforts of men like Bill Gates who do tremendous good through their philanthropic donations, but to put your life, career, and financial stability on the line to do what is right, that is truly heroic.
To continue this line of thought, I have a few more names for you to consider. I know I have mentioned many times that I read the Smithsonian magazine, but I may not have revealed that I also read the National Geographic. January's edition of the Nat Geo featured a celebration of their 125th anniversary, and included multiple articles on why we, individually and collectively, explore. And, of course, the articles included glimpses at some of today's explorers. Like those in December's Smithsonian these people fly under the radar yet contribute to the knowledge of humankind while breaking the boundaries of their respective disciplines.
From Cory Richards who achieved the first winter ascent of the 26,362 foot Gasherbrum II peak in Pakistan to Brian Skerry's photographs of rarely seen undersea creatures, there are many unknown yet highly motivated and curious individuals who continue mankind's ongoing desire to go where no man has gone before.
Of course, most of us don't have the talent, motivation and/or resources to devote our lives to being the first, or the best, or the most daring. Yet, if we assume that the meaning and purpose of our lives is to leave the world a better place than when we arrived, we don't have to do anything famous or be especially daring or courageous.
I recently was made aware of a college campus where the students have created a program to take the food that restaurants, diners, supermarkets, etc are about to throw away and get it into the hands of those who are hungry or without the means to purchase their own food. I am not talking about old burgers which have been sitting under the heat lamp of your nearest fast food place, but real food that may be close to the end of its shelf life. I also recently was told of a local retailer/food outlet that donates its close to expiration date food to our local food bank. Considering the sober statistic that upwards of 40% of all food is wasted in this great country, simple programs that prevent food waste while battling hunger do not take large sums of money or a night on a mountaintop to be effective.
I turned 18 just after the mandatory draft ended in the United States, so this may sound a bit disingenuous, but I wonder if some type of volunteer requirement should be developed for all Americans, especially our young people. I am not talking about Doctors Without Borders, but something much more locally based that reminds all of us that we were fortunate to have been born in this country and that part of that privilege is to give back. Service at local elementary schools, nursing homes, food kitchens, hospitals, etc. Perhaps as a requirement to graduate high school, or as a way to reduce student loan interest or principle, or, sorry fellow liberals, as a way to earn one's unemployment. Frankly, I would prefer a tradition of volunteerism to be the driver of such a program, but sometimes traditions need a start, a gentle push, to begin.
To me, one of the most glaring hypocrisies of our American culture, is the deep seated belief that we are a Christian nation, while we seem to worship the dollar so extensively. Each year, Forbes publishes a list of the most richest people on earth, with the only criteria being their actual or alleged net worth. But is the world better off for those people having so much money? Did they attain it through the invention of a computer, or by selling weapons of mass destruction? Is the richest person on earth wealthy because of her intellect, or because she runs multi-national companies that move jobs from one country to another chasing after the cheapest labor?
Perhaps service to one's fellow man, even for only six months or a year, might temper that desire to be the richest man on earth, and light the fire within us to be the most selfless person on earth.
In the meantime, the next time you are walking to your car in a parking lot, or to your house or your workplace, and you see a plastic bottle in the street, or a plastic bag, or an empty pack of cigarettes, take a second, pick it up and throw it away. Extend your concern for a clean house to a clean neighborhood, a clean city, a clean state. Or better yet, the next time you see a someone struggling to reach the top shelf at the grocery store, or carry their bags to their car, or open a door with their hands full, lend a hand. Volunteering, helping your fellow man, does not have to be via an organized group but can just be one human treating another humanely.
Volunteer, and be a better person.
To continue this line of thought, I have a few more names for you to consider. I know I have mentioned many times that I read the Smithsonian magazine, but I may not have revealed that I also read the National Geographic. January's edition of the Nat Geo featured a celebration of their 125th anniversary, and included multiple articles on why we, individually and collectively, explore. And, of course, the articles included glimpses at some of today's explorers. Like those in December's Smithsonian these people fly under the radar yet contribute to the knowledge of humankind while breaking the boundaries of their respective disciplines.
From Cory Richards who achieved the first winter ascent of the 26,362 foot Gasherbrum II peak in Pakistan to Brian Skerry's photographs of rarely seen undersea creatures, there are many unknown yet highly motivated and curious individuals who continue mankind's ongoing desire to go where no man has gone before.
Of course, most of us don't have the talent, motivation and/or resources to devote our lives to being the first, or the best, or the most daring. Yet, if we assume that the meaning and purpose of our lives is to leave the world a better place than when we arrived, we don't have to do anything famous or be especially daring or courageous.
I recently was made aware of a college campus where the students have created a program to take the food that restaurants, diners, supermarkets, etc are about to throw away and get it into the hands of those who are hungry or without the means to purchase their own food. I am not talking about old burgers which have been sitting under the heat lamp of your nearest fast food place, but real food that may be close to the end of its shelf life. I also recently was told of a local retailer/food outlet that donates its close to expiration date food to our local food bank. Considering the sober statistic that upwards of 40% of all food is wasted in this great country, simple programs that prevent food waste while battling hunger do not take large sums of money or a night on a mountaintop to be effective.
I turned 18 just after the mandatory draft ended in the United States, so this may sound a bit disingenuous, but I wonder if some type of volunteer requirement should be developed for all Americans, especially our young people. I am not talking about Doctors Without Borders, but something much more locally based that reminds all of us that we were fortunate to have been born in this country and that part of that privilege is to give back. Service at local elementary schools, nursing homes, food kitchens, hospitals, etc. Perhaps as a requirement to graduate high school, or as a way to reduce student loan interest or principle, or, sorry fellow liberals, as a way to earn one's unemployment. Frankly, I would prefer a tradition of volunteerism to be the driver of such a program, but sometimes traditions need a start, a gentle push, to begin.
To me, one of the most glaring hypocrisies of our American culture, is the deep seated belief that we are a Christian nation, while we seem to worship the dollar so extensively. Each year, Forbes publishes a list of the most richest people on earth, with the only criteria being their actual or alleged net worth. But is the world better off for those people having so much money? Did they attain it through the invention of a computer, or by selling weapons of mass destruction? Is the richest person on earth wealthy because of her intellect, or because she runs multi-national companies that move jobs from one country to another chasing after the cheapest labor?
Perhaps service to one's fellow man, even for only six months or a year, might temper that desire to be the richest man on earth, and light the fire within us to be the most selfless person on earth.
In the meantime, the next time you are walking to your car in a parking lot, or to your house or your workplace, and you see a plastic bottle in the street, or a plastic bag, or an empty pack of cigarettes, take a second, pick it up and throw it away. Extend your concern for a clean house to a clean neighborhood, a clean city, a clean state. Or better yet, the next time you see a someone struggling to reach the top shelf at the grocery store, or carry their bags to their car, or open a door with their hands full, lend a hand. Volunteering, helping your fellow man, does not have to be via an organized group but can just be one human treating another humanely.
Volunteer, and be a better person.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
The Day After ParaNorman
I saw two movies recently that, while not similar in their plots, did have a linked thought that inspired me.
The first movie was The Day After Tomorrow. This movie depicts a sudden climate shift which begins a new ice age. The one scene which particularly interested me occurred just as the deadly winter storm begins to descend on New York City. At this point in the movie, transportation via airplane and train has ceased, and most people are trying to move via car or foot although if you have ever been on Manhattan Island in rush hour, car traffic does not move very quickly. Anyway, the scene in question involves what appears to be a Wall Street type who decides that perhaps a bus might get him to where he needs to go; unfortunately, the bus is out of service. He bangs on the door and offers the driver $200 to put the bus into service. The driver relents, and so the Wall Street guy has bought his way to safety. Or so he thinks. In the next scene a huge tidal wave engulfs everything in its path, including the bus.
The second movie was ParaNorman. It is a kid's movie, about a young boy who is different from his peers. He can see and speak with dead people. Or, more precisely, the dead people who are still on earth due to some unresolved issues or their own violent death. At school, he is treated as a leper, getting daily messages on his locker about how he is different. At home, since he has had an ongoing conversation with his dead grandmother, he is treated as a liability by his father. After his dad says something particularly nasty to him, his mother tries to defend her husband's words by telling Norman that sometime people say and do things when they are afraid. Normans responds with the obvious, "a father shouldn't be afraid of his son".
But the more interesting scene occurs towards the end of the movie when Norman confronts the witch who has been loosed upon the town. The witch, in this case, is a little girl who had been killed by the town elders 300 years ago for being different and who has cursed the town, and those that killed her.
Norman has decided that the only way to lift the curse is to talk to the girl. He tells her that she cursed the town and those that killed her to get back at them, to cause them pain because they caused her pain. The obviousness of this fact, that we often cause pain to those who hurt us, leads the little girl to ask Norman if he ever wanted to hurt all those bullies in his life. Here is the cool part. Norman, 9 year old Norman, says sure, he thought of getting back at them. But what would that matter? It wouldn't erase the memories of their cruelty, nor would it prevent them from being mean in the future. Continuing the circle of meanness, or any cruel act, is never the answer to ending that behavior. And, of course, since this is a movie for kids which requires a happy ending, Norman reminds her about the good people in her life, her mother in particular, and the happy times she shared with her. The transformation from witch to little girl is complete, and she falls asleep, never to awaken, curse or torment, again.
How are these movies similar you ask?
Perhaps they are not, other than that both teach us a lesson about life. In fact, there are hundreds of movies like these two, seasonal movies like It's a Wonderful Life and Scrooge. Movies that we all cry over, nod our heads in understanding, perhaps even try to emulate, at least for a day or two. Over and over again, we are exposed to the lessons which teach us that accumulating large sums of money cannot prevent bad things from happening, or delay our inevitable death. Will not eliminate the fear we feel about unfortunate events or death. Or the lesson that violence begets violence. That killing to avenge killing leads to continued killing, not peace. That hurting another who has hurt you belies the teachings of our moral and spiritual guidebooks.
We are all afraid, at times. Sometimes we deal with our fear by ignoring it. By immersing ourselves in the pursuit of money or fame rather than facing our fears. Sometimes we project our fears onto scapegoats, the Jews in 1940 Germany, blacks in the 1960's, gays in the 1980's, Muslims in the 2000's.
Sometimes we succumb to our fears by living in fear, questioning the motives of everyone around us, even the motives of our president. And then we react to these fears by arming ourselves to the teeth, as if violence generated by good guys can eliminate our fears.
Maybe my idea of happiness is off base. A world inhabited by people who understand that love is far more important than money. That peace is the absence of war and violence. That our family and friends are our most precious possessions. Perhaps it is all just one more utopian idea that will never be realized because man is flawed, is afraid. Perhaps, but should that prevent us from dreaming of and striving for such a world?
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Guns, and Roses
Happy New Year everyone!
Sorry that there has been such a gap since my last post. Beginning with the time spent picking up and returning my son to college for the Thanksgiving holiday, followed by a week of visiting my dad at hospice which led to his sorrowful passing, then on to the Christmas holiday and its hustle and bustle, it has been impossible for me to spend any time at my computer. And frankly, and despite the plethora of "events" that have occurred in the news recently, I have been less than motivated. I think of my dad very often, and generally those thoughts are accompanied by misty eyes, and/or tears. Additionally, I have been working a lot, as the nature of both my jobs equates to much extra work.
For now, rather than trying to jam all my thoughts into one huge post, I thought I would focus on just two topics.
Guns, and Roses
Guns, of course, refers to the tragic massacre which occurred in Connecticut last month. I am pleased to see that President Obama has indicated he will propose some new gun laws. Perhaps, since he does not have the albatross of worrying about a future election around his neck, he will thumb his nose at the NRA and propose a law which might make a difference. Clearly, it is time to return to a ban on assault weapons. I know there will be difficulty in defining exactly what an assault weapon is, and there will be attempts by the gun lobby to water down any restriction, but for me, any automatic weapon that can fire multiple rounds per second should be outlawed. There is really only one purpose for such a weapon, and it is to kill. Let's hope some sanity will descend upon Washington and such a ban will pass within the next year.
As for roses, I just read about a number of them in the December Smithsonian magazine.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issue/December_2012.html
This issue features quick hitting articles under the umbrella phrase "Innovators Who are Rocking the World" each of whom received one of Smithsonian's 2012 American Ingenuity Awards.
To me, the most impressive is Pardis Sabeti. She is a 36-year-old hyperkinetic physician and geneticist who has combined her studies of evolution and public health to reveal ways to understand the evolutionary nature of disease which may lead to new approaches to treat, and eradicate the worst of the infectious scourges that effect humanity. And she plays in a rock n roll band!!!
And oh, by the way, she was born in Tehran, Iran. Keep that in mind when you hear closed minded people ranting about wanting their country back, ie, no one other than white people.
Or perhaps you might be impressed by Jack Andraka. All he did was develop a diagnostic test for one of the deadliest forms of cancer, pancreatic. He did some of his research in the lab in his basement and the one at his high school. Yes, high school, as Jack is only 16 and a sophomore in high school!
Or maybe you will enjoy reading about Elon Musk. All he wants to do is change the course of humanity in the areas of energy and space exploration. His Tesla electric car can travel 300 miles on a single charge, can accelerate from zero to sixty in 5.5 seconds and can seat five comfortably. In the meantime, his company, SpaceX, has already launched multiple payloads into space to dock with the International Space Station (ISS), and is currently the only way the United States (military or otherwise) can access space and the ISS.
You also might like learning about Behn Zeitlin's films, Bryan Sevenson's work with prisoners wrongly accused, Esperanza Spalding's music, Jim Anderson's work towards understanding the connection between climate change and the ozone layer, or Anne Kelly Knowles' work in historical geography.
All innovators of our time, working today, now, to solve our problems, not just for Americans, but for all people of earth. Truly roses among us. And, while these people are famous in their fields, winners of various scientific and national grants to continue their work, they do so outside of "fame". You won't see them of the cover of People Magazine, or on American Idol, or in Seaside Heights.
Finally, and particularly for the researchers among them, they invariably plow their grants and scholarship money back into their research because they know that money is nice but working on and solving the problems of humanity, whether they be disease, climate change, or energy consumption, is the real purpose of life.
Let's all try just a bit harder to make the world a better place like these fine people, and perhaps, at our memorial service, it will be said that the world was a better place for our having lived. A more glorious tribute cannot be achieved.
Sorry that there has been such a gap since my last post. Beginning with the time spent picking up and returning my son to college for the Thanksgiving holiday, followed by a week of visiting my dad at hospice which led to his sorrowful passing, then on to the Christmas holiday and its hustle and bustle, it has been impossible for me to spend any time at my computer. And frankly, and despite the plethora of "events" that have occurred in the news recently, I have been less than motivated. I think of my dad very often, and generally those thoughts are accompanied by misty eyes, and/or tears. Additionally, I have been working a lot, as the nature of both my jobs equates to much extra work.
For now, rather than trying to jam all my thoughts into one huge post, I thought I would focus on just two topics.
Guns, and Roses
Guns, of course, refers to the tragic massacre which occurred in Connecticut last month. I am pleased to see that President Obama has indicated he will propose some new gun laws. Perhaps, since he does not have the albatross of worrying about a future election around his neck, he will thumb his nose at the NRA and propose a law which might make a difference. Clearly, it is time to return to a ban on assault weapons. I know there will be difficulty in defining exactly what an assault weapon is, and there will be attempts by the gun lobby to water down any restriction, but for me, any automatic weapon that can fire multiple rounds per second should be outlawed. There is really only one purpose for such a weapon, and it is to kill. Let's hope some sanity will descend upon Washington and such a ban will pass within the next year.
As for roses, I just read about a number of them in the December Smithsonian magazine.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issue/December_2012.html
This issue features quick hitting articles under the umbrella phrase "Innovators Who are Rocking the World" each of whom received one of Smithsonian's 2012 American Ingenuity Awards.
To me, the most impressive is Pardis Sabeti. She is a 36-year-old hyperkinetic physician and geneticist who has combined her studies of evolution and public health to reveal ways to understand the evolutionary nature of disease which may lead to new approaches to treat, and eradicate the worst of the infectious scourges that effect humanity. And she plays in a rock n roll band!!!
And oh, by the way, she was born in Tehran, Iran. Keep that in mind when you hear closed minded people ranting about wanting their country back, ie, no one other than white people.
Or perhaps you might be impressed by Jack Andraka. All he did was develop a diagnostic test for one of the deadliest forms of cancer, pancreatic. He did some of his research in the lab in his basement and the one at his high school. Yes, high school, as Jack is only 16 and a sophomore in high school!
Or maybe you will enjoy reading about Elon Musk. All he wants to do is change the course of humanity in the areas of energy and space exploration. His Tesla electric car can travel 300 miles on a single charge, can accelerate from zero to sixty in 5.5 seconds and can seat five comfortably. In the meantime, his company, SpaceX, has already launched multiple payloads into space to dock with the International Space Station (ISS), and is currently the only way the United States (military or otherwise) can access space and the ISS.
You also might like learning about Behn Zeitlin's films, Bryan Sevenson's work with prisoners wrongly accused, Esperanza Spalding's music, Jim Anderson's work towards understanding the connection between climate change and the ozone layer, or Anne Kelly Knowles' work in historical geography.
All innovators of our time, working today, now, to solve our problems, not just for Americans, but for all people of earth. Truly roses among us. And, while these people are famous in their fields, winners of various scientific and national grants to continue their work, they do so outside of "fame". You won't see them of the cover of People Magazine, or on American Idol, or in Seaside Heights.
Finally, and particularly for the researchers among them, they invariably plow their grants and scholarship money back into their research because they know that money is nice but working on and solving the problems of humanity, whether they be disease, climate change, or energy consumption, is the real purpose of life.
Let's all try just a bit harder to make the world a better place like these fine people, and perhaps, at our memorial service, it will be said that the world was a better place for our having lived. A more glorious tribute cannot be achieved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
