To Write or not to Write

The near zero temps ended earlier this week. Amazing how warm 25 degrees can feel after a few days of single digit readings. Unfortunately, a rather large winter storm struck the area leaving at least a foot of snow to be shoveled, or blown as the case may be. I encountered some impressive snow mountains during my route, especially in cul-du-sacs. More than a few of them had small children perched on top waving to the cars and pedestrians as they passed by.

More snow is expected this week; after 3 snow days already, I told my daughter she should be prepared to be in school until July this year.

I read a column this past week which admitted to and bemoaned the fact that the writer was aware of an obsession with Sarah Palin. He was not especially proud that he had written about her 42 times since her vice-presidential nomination so he had decided to try to be Palin-free for a month in his columns. I sent him the following email

Mr. ----,

I am a subscriber of the Philadelphia Inquirer which has recently been publishing your column. I was especially interested in last Tuesday's column concerning your dilemma in reporting/commenting about Sarah Palin and your challenge to be Palin-free for a month.

What particularly struck me was your admission that your obsession is partly driven by the reluctance to "send millions of Web surfers, readers, viewers, and listeners to our less scrupulous competitors". Wow. Obviously, as a paid writer, you must be cognizant of your audience in that, you need to have one to be paid. But isn't it the job of the writer to create the audience either by pure writing talent, poignant topical commentary, interesting stories, inspiring tales of human achievement, etc? It seems so easy to stand on a soapbox or sit in front of a radio mike or a TV camera and say "The bogeyman is coming" so as to get attention. I know that your column was meant to be tongue-in-cheek but the problem lies in the fact that even good media men and women are resorting to quips and commentary for the sake of ratings.

Somewhere in your column there is the unstated message that if no one talked about her, she might disappear; if we stop feeding the beast, it will wither and die. I have a blog which I began last year. I have no real audience to speak of so perhaps it is easy for me to sound a bit condescending when I say that I have only mentioned Ms. Palin once or twice and only as an example towards making a point, not as the topic of the entire blog. If my blogs were the norm, Ms. Palin might still be governor of Alaska!!

To be honest, I know that one of the reasons for not blogging about her is that I do not find much of interest in what she says or does. Her popularity seems to be rooted in her ability to create a black and white response to every topic, then convince her listeners that she and they are always in the right and the "others" are always in the wrong. It doesn't matter if today's "right" audience agrees with yesterday's, as long as she winks half a dozen times during her speech, everything is right as rain. For some reason I am reminded of the scene in the movie, Men in Black II when the Laura Flynn Boyle character, Serleena says "Silly little planet. Anyone could take over the place with the right set of mammary glands."

I have only read a few of your columns to date, but I feel confident in saying that YOU CAN DO THIS. As you say, only good can come from conquering an obsession. While I don't think you will gain so much time as to actually understand the federal budget or Medicare reimbursement rates, perhaps you could attempt the more modest achievement of explaining how giving more money to the top 1% income earners is going to get people back to work again.

Good luck and my sincerest regards,

Joe Pugnetti

Working Girl

One of my favorite movies is Working Girl with Melanie Griffith and Harrison Ford. I like the idea of a "rags to riches" movie with a woman for a change and I like to look at Melanie Griffith. Propriety forbids me to detail why I like Melanie but if you get a chance to watch this movie, note the way and how often she licks her lips.

Towards the end of the movie, after it is revealed by her boss that she is a mere secretary causing her to lose not only her job but credit for the big deal she has worked on throughout the movie, the day is saved when she reads about a potential problem with the radio network purchase, Harrison comes to her defense, and she is given the opportunity to explain everything to the owner of the company negotiating to buy the network. When asked why she didn't tell everyone the story of how she first came up with the idea of this big company buying into radio, she said (and I quote)

"You can bend the rules plenty once you get to the top, but not while you're trying to get there. And if you're someone like me, you can't get there without bending the rules."

Is that really true? Do we tend to look the other way when successful people bend the rules, whether they be legal, moral or just the generally accepted guidelines for everyday living? And if so, why?

Certainly, we treat our athletes differently than everyday people. Especially if the person exhibits extraordinary athletic prowess. Right from high school they are accorded special status which can frequently lead to the turning of a blind eye when rules are bent or broken.

Or in the case of high salaried executives who cook the books resulting in a corporation's economic collapse. Is that person punished in the same way as the common criminal who holds up a grocery store. 

Obviously, I am not condoning armed robbery, but hasn't the executive whose crime results in the unemployment of hundreds of people and the loss of millions of dollars of pensions/IRA money done more harm to society than the guy who steals $300 from the owner of one store? Yet, the thief will spend real, hard time in prison behind bars while the white collar criminal, perhaps after months if not years of judicial posturing might spend some time in a federal penitentiary. Worse, once the blue collar criminal serves his time, his record will make it difficult for him to find meaningful employment, yet some of these CEO's leave one failed corporation only to go to another 7 figure salary at another one.

In the movie, Melanie's character makes the jump to a better job, gets the guy and, at least at first, treats those in the position she left with respect, unlike the way her boss treated her. She has made the most of her opportunity and, with some help from those who already "made it", we are treated to a happy ending.

I still believe that America is the place to be to experience this kind of "success" story. But I sometimes wonder if more people who have become successful are demonstrating the example of Melanie's original boss rather than her eventual boss.

Do enough people in management and ownership positions realize how many future Melanie Griffiths there are working the assembly lines and phones lines and counter lines who just need that one break? Do they remember that it wasn't that long ago that they were in a similar position and received that chance from a mentor or ex-boss? Pulling up one's bootstraps is a great cliche, but the vast majority of people who have made it, did so with some help in addition to their own hard work. .

Finally, I read an article in the business section of the Philadelphia Inquirer recently. The author was commenting on the news that corporations are currently sitting on literally billions of dollars of cash but are still slow to hire new employees. When the author asked a person of some standing in the business community what advice they would give these companies about jobs and hiring, the answer was that they should continue to focus on returning profits to the investors.

Is this a reflection of most thinking in today's business community? Is this a philosophy that will help hire and encourage future Melanies?

Does a concern for investors and profit rather than the employees or people of the community bend the rules of how we should treat each other?

Pretty Condoms In a Row

Extremely cold weather the last few days. My car's outside temp reading dipped below the zero degree mark the last two mornings. I was curious to see if it would actually display a negative number but it did. In fact, this morning it displayed a negative number for the majority of my route. When it finally warmed up to zero then topped out at 3 degrees I was tempted to open my window and let in this warm air!

Yesterday the papers were very late getting to the warehouse so I did most of my route in the light. A new perspective for many of the neighborhoods and homes of my customers. Also, I witnessed a very pretty sunrise while noticing a just-off full moon on the other side of the sky. The sun and moon in the sky together is an interesting sight.

Finally, not many deer out these last few days. Funny, when the weather gets extreme, the animals know enough to stay in shelters but the humans still go out!

A new friend of mine who frequently submits letters to the Phila Inquirer, recently sent one regarding an Inquirer editorial supporting a contest in conjunction with the distribution of condoms in our city schools. (I believe the contest was to create a new wrapper for the condoms in hopes of increasing interest, hence increasing condom use.) My friend's letter expressed displeasure that rather than promoting abstinence and self-control, the Inquirer was supportive of a school program that more or less condoned teen age sex. In response to his email detailing his letter and asking for feedback, pro and con, I sent the following response.

Dear ...,

You may recall that this was the topic that began our correspondence, and, dare I say, friendship. I had submitted a letter to the Inquirer about teen pregnancy to which you responded. If you further recall, we disagree somewhat on the subject.

As I may have said to you before, I believe that humanity is evolving, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

As I see it, this evolution as it relates to sex has developed in the following manner. (This would be my personal viewpoint, I didn't read it anywhere).

A. The Beginning to the discovery of a link between sex and children

My understanding is that man spent many eons in ignorance of the relationship between sex and conception/children. One could argue that this was a good thing as the species needed to breed to increase its chances to survive. The base workings of this time are still present today; in men, a stronger sex drive (create a blood line), and in women, the desire for family and the nurturing aspect of raising children.

B. The Time when that link was understood by women (only)

I assume that at this point, women understood the relationship between sex and children. I would bet that research into most of the civilizations of the past would reveal lore passed along from mother to daughter as to how to keep from getting pregnant. Of course, since men wrote much of the history that we read, this information may be hard to find but I am sure that women figured it out long before men. How long that time lasted I will leave to greater minds than my own.

C. The Time when men (in charge) finally figure it out

Whether there was a Benedict Arnold among women along this topic or just that finally men started thinking with their big heads, sometime in history the link became apparent to the men in leadership positions. Unfortunately, since men are more about power and control, all the institutions of the day were adjusted to include this new knowledge. Whether by religious or government control, men incorporated this new knowledge in their need to be in charge. Sometimes sex was good such as when procreation of those like oneself was involved, sometimes bad. To defend men, there were decisions to limit sex that were actually good for society, such as no sex between family members or with farmyard animals, but in general, it is more about control. This is best reflected in the fact that so much of the birth control methods are for women, a gender with such a complicated reproductive system when compared to men.

D. The Time when contraception becomes widely known

Finally, through science and despite the control mechanisms (still ongoing) from religion, everyday contraception is available to most people in societies like our own. (There are still leaders that don't allow birth control in their country because they are still stuck in level C above). While we still struggle to define when sex is appropriate and for whom, we at least understand the link between sex and pregnancy and have the resources to engage in one while preventing the other. But the evolution of our emotional understanding of sex is still to come.

E. The time when our understanding of the mechanism of sex is matched by the evolution of our emotions concerning sex

This time is yet to come. Birth pangs of this time are evident in the fact that our young people use sex for all sorts of emotional gratification rather than for its true uses; responsible pleasure and/or procreation. But I believe that eventually, sex will be treated as I have indicated. Young people may still have sex, but not because their peers do, or because they are bored or because they have not progressed beyond the base instincts that I detail in section A. Of course, as is true for all generations of young people, they will at times engage in foolish acts, including sex. The good news is that birth control will not be about controlling the actions of certain populations but about preventing pregnancy for people either too young to be parents or not desiring to be parents.

I think that in the end, we still confuse birth control with preventing sex. It is about preventing pregnancy. Take out the emotional baggage and it seems pretty clear that we want all people, children as well as adults, to understand that sex leads to pregnancy and so if one believes that sex is an expression of love, then true love includes some form of birth control in that expression.

Or, to put it another way, if you believe that sex among young people is irresponsible, fine, continue to give them solid, rational, practical reasons why they should not participate. But isn't it as irresponsible to withhold the process of birth prevention to those same people? Does it help to stand above them and say - see, I told you so when they get pregnant for lack of knowledge of prevention?

As always my best regards,

Joe

Last word (for now) on violence control

From the time I leave my house to get the papers until I return home, I usually note upwards of a 10 degree swing in temperature per my car's outside thermometer. Usually Doylestown is warmer than Perkasie and certain neighborhoods built near open fields are colder than those in town. This morning every time I looked at the gauge it said 33 degrees. Every time!! Although the temp was at 33 degrees, I still found my car sliding through certain turns and around some areas. While I won't say that I am becoming an expert at driving in ice and snow, I am certainly getting more used to being out of control, temporarily, while driving in poor weather. Could there be a future blog about life and enjoying those out of control moments?

Speaking of sliding, yesterday's sleet cover on top of the new snow produced my longest newspaper tosses to date. Not because I threw the papers any further but because some deliveries hit the ice and kept on going!! I wonder if any of the subjects of the various articles were saying WHEEEE as they slid on the ice?

I realized after posting on Monday that I was remiss in not mentioning that it was the national holiday in recognition of Martin Luther King Jr. What a tremendous example of working for societal change within the framework of non-violence! It makes me wonder why, on a national level, we continue to advocate change in countries where the rule of law is less established, countries where leaders routinely use violence against their own people to control them, yet we invariably turn to our own version of violence to reinforce these ideas. Again, as if might makes right.

Would not an example of diplomatic pressure, aid to improve the people's standard of living, and support for the process of change, ultimately work better than bombs and bullets? Please, can someone cite me an example whereby the killing of the citizens of another country led them to change their society to be more like us? And, please, don't respond with WW2 for my understanding of history indicates that it was more the incredible amount of economic aid and debt forgiveness that turned Germany and Japan into allies. As proof, I would offer the evidence that our treatment of the losers of WW1, especially Germany, planted the seeds for the eventual rise of the Nazi party. It was oh so easy for Hitler to take national pride and turn it into international hate when his fellow citizens could see in their everyday lives how little the world cared for them.

You can catch more flies with honey...

But again, there is a violent streak in Americans, by nature and by culture. We love righteous anger and the victory of the downtrodden over the bully. Unfortunately, we don't seem to recognize that in many parts of the world, we are considered to be the bully. The memory of America's role in saving the world from Hitler, or even that of our victory over the evil Russian empire has been replaced by our more recent history of both covert and overt actions to change the leaders of countries with which we disagree.

So, how does all this relate to guns, gun control, violence control? Perhaps it is inevitable that the crazy or the angry individual will kill regardless of the law. But aren't the laws written to control those individuals or to guide the more rational, majority of the populace? I would think that if asked, most Americans would prefer a world with a little less violence and a little more love. For themselves and their children and grandchildren, etc.

If love then is preferred, should we then not use it as a litmus test when considering any topic? Do guns promote this future world of love or suggest that violence is an acceptable method of interacting with one another? Or more specifically, do assault weapons and multi-round magazines for hand guns sound like they should have a place in a world with more love and less violence?

More on Violence Control

On my way to pickup the papers last Friday, I glanced at my car's outside thermometer and was reminded of the movie The Golden Child where Eddie Murphy is crossing the path of logs to get to the special dagger and asks how many people successfully completed that same challenge. When he hears the answer, he repeats it: None, None!!. In the case of my car's thermometer, I was repeating One, One.

I was in an especially positive mood within the first 15 minutes of Saturday's delivery because I saw a herd (what qualifies as a herd by the way; 6, 8, 15?) of deer on Harvest Lane. Eight deer were in the midst of crossing the road as I approached and two more were about to cross but turned around when they saw my headlights. I lowered both windows and greeted them with a hearty "Good morning".

In my last blog, I suggested that we should reframe the issue of gun control as a violence control issue. Of course, there is an inherent problem in doing this as violence is part of our American culture as well as part of our human nature. I have even had people tell me that it is only through bursts of violence that all the important advances to humanity have occurred. One could even argue that the very basis of how we mark the passage of time began with as grisly a death as imaginable; a crucifixion.

"We justify our bloody deeds in the name of destiny and in the name of God". (From the Last Resort by the Eagles, on the album Hotel California).

Nonetheless, I remain hopeful that we are slowly (agonizingly slowly) evolving away from violence as a means to address our problems. From country on country to man on man (or woman), our use of violence has reduced over time.

Yes, countries still drop bombs on each other, mobilize troops at each others' borders and actually invade each other, but generally these actions follow an attempt at diplomacy, and even after the onset of hostilities, lines of communication remain open and other nations intercede to help negotiate a ceasefire.

And certainly, as individuals we continue to wrangle over resources and occasionally murder each other but most nations have developed laws which make killing illegal and the vast majority of people respect and honor those laws.

To me, one of the critical concepts we must address is: might makes right. Whether it is the wronged innocent who exacts vengeance on their unpunished attacker or the belief that the victor in a war must have had god on their side, this concept permeates our existence. What is truly striking is that, at least in America, we take pride in our christian values yet conveniently forget that the foundation of those values, Jesus Christ, did not "win" his earthly battle with those that held the power in his time.

So, if might makes right, doesn't that mean that at various times in man's history, some of the most ruthless men and their nations were in the right?

Perhaps might needs to be defined in a different way? Perhaps the "right" path is the one which involves the least amount of physical might as that kind of might can so easily lead to an arrogance that values some lives over others. Perhaps the preoccupation with might and the belief that "right" can be won is, in fact, the exact opposite of the message of Christ. Perhaps believing in one's might to make right has everything to do with living a life demonstrating the example lived by Jesus and nothing to do with the might derived from weapons.

The Tucson Shooting

This morning I delayed delivering the paper as we had received about 6 inches of snow overnight. As a result, I was out and about between 6-8:00 AM which meant that I was driving in the light for about half of my route. For the most part, the main roads were completely clear and virtually all of the streets I encountered were plowed. My only difficulty was the occasional turnarounds that I do in customers' driveways and the fact that many had not cleared them yet. But any minor turnaround issue was more than made up by the scenery of the morning, especially in the time when it is light but the sun has not quite risen. There was a white and silver sheen of snow on the trees and telephone wires which was very pretty indeed.

The past weekend's horrific shooting spree in Tucson which claimed the life of six people and left many more wounded, elicited some strong discussions about both the vitriolic discourse careening across our airwaves and the status of gun control in America.

While I certainly agree that the nature of our political discourse has been very extreme, I don't think it is possible to know what transpired in the mind of the young man who committed this crime. But I have heard it said, and have said it before, words matter. As long as the talking heads, radio talk show hosts, TV commentators, etc, continue to cater to the extreme ideologues on each side, as long as conflict, and three people talking at once, and screaming sell advertisement time, as long as we, the audience, continue to settle for superficial blabbering rather than meaningful debate, then there will be individuals, already on the edge who will find subtle and not so subtle encouragement to address today's issues with violence.

Which brings us to gun control.

It dawned on me today that, again, part of the problem with meaningful gun control is that the issue has been framed by the people who are opposed to it. It is too easy to fire up a certain portion of the public by turning all attempts at gun control into a litmus test about the Second Amendment. Assault weapons are clearly not needed in a civilized society (they certainly didn't exist in the time of our founding fathers) but banning their use becomes an attack on our right to bear arms, even though so few people in this country choose to purchase an assault weapon.

So, perhaps we need to begin calling this issue violence control. Isn't that what we are really attempting to reduce; the number and severity of violence and violent acts. Certainly, no one is for more violence! Banning multi-round cartridges like that used by the Tucson shooter would not be gun control, but an attempt at violence control. Restricting the type of weapons that can be purchased, certain assault weapons for instance, is an attempt to reduce the violence that results when such a weapon is fired. Requiring that someone notify the police if they lose their handgun, again, becomes an attempt to reduce the violence that might be committed by the thief.

Since the Tucson shooting, I have heard more than one person say that if more people had been carrying guns, the shooter may not have done so much damage. In other words, had more people been shooting in that crowded parking lot, there would have been less violence. Does that sound right? I would hazard to guess that had more people had weapons, more people would have been shot; perhaps less shot by the disturbed young man but probably more overall due to "accidental" hits. Am I wrong?

On the other hand, if no one had a gun, then no one would have been shot.

Violence control; are you for it or against it?

The Growing Income Inequality

Since my last post it snowed a few times. The first began in the early morning hours while I was delivering papers. The flakes were of the large variety and when I flicked on my car's high beams the scene was spectacular. Big, fluffy snow flakes flying at my car's windshield made the road resemble a scene in one of those snow globes that you shake. Beautiful.

On the weekdays I am done delivering papers by 6:00 AM so it is still dark when I get home. But on the weekends, I have almost three times as many customers so I don't finish until 7:30 at least. This past Saturday, the sun rise was especially pretty especially when viewed coming up over an open field some of which still exist in Perkasie area.

Last Friday I read an article which presented information detailing the growing income inequity in the United States and questioning why Middle America was not more outraged.

The information about the income inequities came from Timothy Noah at slate.com; a link to view this info is below.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026

My response to the author is as follows

I read your article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer with much interest as I have spent much time recently trying to understand why average Americans are not more outraged at the redistribution of income that has resulted in the stagnation of their standard of living. Unfortunately, you did not present any substantial answers. Perhaps it is because you are asking the wrong people.

First, does a plutocracy exist in America today? Probably not yet as there are too many professions that still produce exorbitant salaries. Athletes, movie stars, rock stars, hedge fund managers, CEO's of multinational companies, reality show hosts, etc, there are thousands of people who are earning millions of dollars a year. As I would include an organizational aspect as part of the definition of plutocracy, I don't see one existing today nor do I see one existing in the near future.

That being said, I do believe that there are forces at work in America that actively work to keep influence and resources in the hands of the rich while offering just enough opportunity and reward for the middle class to keep them, as Tyler Cowen so aptly defines them, as threshold earners. But these forces are not big enough to direct all the money and all the influence as many people achieve enhanced economic status through the vagaries of emotion, fads and other superficial factors that can't be predicted or controlled. Who knew that American Idol would become what it is today? (Although, the recent Supreme Court decision allowing more money to flow into politics disturbs me and certainly increases the chance of a plutocracy emerging).

A possible answer as to why middle class Americans are not up in arms is that our belief in capitalism overrides our ability to make a connection between the problems of capitalism and the growing inequality of incomes. That is because capitalism is no longer an economic philosophy but is beginning to become a religion.

The rich, of course, believe 100% in capitalism as it has worked for them. They are the poster children for hard work, entrepreneurship, individualism, etc, all the positive attributes that are associated with capitalism at its best. And, not only did it work for these individuals, but it worked for America. We are a country that went from a second class world power which just barely recovered from a decade of economic depression to the only super power in the world; all in about 50 years.

Organizations like the Cato Institute and magazines like the American Interest are the priests and rabbis of the religion of capitalism so will not be able to offer any understanding of why people who are not benefiting from it are not more outraged. They undoubtedly believe that those who are not benefiting are just not working hard enough, or worse, they have fallen all the way down the rabbit hole and believe God does not love those people.

In the end, the plutocrats are winning because middle class Americans still believe that they can be rich. And, since enough "regular" people still achieve a lofty economic status, the middle class will continue to believe so, despite the fact that the chance of earning your way to this level is slim to none.

If you want to prove or disprove my assertion, it is easy enough. Ask middle America.

Best Times of Your Life

I recently watched the movie "Pirate Radio". If you haven't seen it yet, it is a light-hearted piece of entertainment, especially if you are either 50+ and can remember when rock n' roll was just beginning to invade our air waves, or if you are a younger rock music fan and you are curious about its origin in terms of radio broadcasts.

There is a scene towards the end of the movie which occurs after the radio rock DJ's are told that legislation has been passed in Great Britain making Pirate Radio illegal. (Considering all the talk today about an increasing government interference in our lives, it is interesting to realize how much more freedom we have today, at least in terms of access to music and entertainment, especially in light of the world wide web).

Anyway, the scene depicts a conversation between two of the main characters in which one comments to the other that he had a horrible thought a few months past and instead of suppressing it, he allowed it to stick in his mind and become a conscious realization. When asked what that thought was, he responded that it was the understanding that this was the best time of his life. The second character, a much younger man, responds that he thinks he will have better times in his future. The first character emits a short laugh, and says, "maybe, but I doubt it".

The meaning that I grasped was that the character was lamenting, not that he was having this spectacular time but that he knew once it came to an end, he would never have as great a time again. His life had peaked. And his conclusion that the younger man would never have a matching experience was based on the wisdom gained from the decades of life that he had already lived. He knew, or thought he knew, what awaited the young man and concluded that it would never match this Rock Radio phase of his life.

So the question that begs to be asked is, when was your best of times? High school? College? Your 30's? 40's?

How many of us would say that their current life phase is the best of times? How many (over 40 years old) would say that the best times are still to come?

I suspect that most people over 40 years old would label their glory days as a time in the past. They might admit that life in the present is good, but not great, but many would certainly consider life in the future as either not something to be thought of or as a time to fear. Our obsession with youth and avoidance of getting old or being old clearly defines most people's opinion of aging.

In essence then, many of us are saying that our lives have peaked. Considering that our population is aging, that the first of the baby boomers will be applying for Medicare this year as they turn 65 years old, is it any wonder that the United States is struggling with its identity? Is it a surprise that we see such a strong yearning for the past, that so many people are looking back for answers to our shared problems rather than forward to the future for resolutions? If a large percentage of the populace thinks it has peaked, then does that not mean that the country has peaked as well?

In my last blog I resolved to try to find the unique in the everyday. Twice in the past three days I stopped to look at the sunset. The magnificent colors, the sheer expanse of the sky where it approached the horizon, and the way the entire scene changed as the sun slowly dropped beyond sight, made me smile. To think that the process happens everyday, twice, when you consider the sunrise, certainly qualifies as both unique and everyday.

But more importantly, I look forward to the continued best times of my life. Yes, I may not be as spry in appreciating those events. I might have to walk through the more physical events rather than running. I may nod off as an evening progresses, perhaps even missing a portion of the night. But I remain hopeful nonetheless that the best times are happening now and are still to come. Perhaps because I have only recently decided that I am a writer, obviously not by profession as I have never been paid to write, but by avocation, and certainly by self-identity. Maybe I am lucky that it has taken so long for this realization to occur, so now I have the rest of my life to see where my writing will take me.

Perhaps then, what defines the best of times is not just what is happening in the present but what keeps us looking forward to life's journey. We believe today is the best of times because we look forward to the same or better in the future.

So again I ask; when was your best of times?

A Special Day

Happy New Years!!

Again, too much time has passed since my last blog. But the perfect storm at my two jobs, extra deliveries and heavier newspapers in the morning job and extra shifts and incredibly busy days at my full time work produced barely enough time to complete the standard holiday routines let alone find the time to write. Still, as is always the case, the gifts were purchased and wrapped, the tree was chosen and decorated, the cards were sorted and mailed, and despite those nagging thoughts that everything wouldn't get done, the end of another holiday season approaches and nothing was neglected. Here's wishing that amid all the rush of the effort, you were able to take a step back and enjoy this special time.

Speaking of special, today is 1/1/11. Another one of those numerical oddities that occur very rarely in life. While we will also have 11/1/11 and 11/11/11 this year, the next date with just one numeral across the board after this year won't be for another 11 years. Think back to where you were 11 years ago, January 1, 2000 and how much has changed in that time. Perhaps a new job, new home, family addition?

Now imagine the changes to come in the next eleven years. Continued family growth or just the opposite, children leaving the nest. Maybe a new job or career; or retirement from your current work. Will your favorite TV show still be on air? Will your daily routine feature a new source for news, a new leisure activity or a new form of transportation?

My son is home from college for Christmas break. As it is a 6+ hour drive, we had ample time to talk about his first college semester. In the course of our discussion we touched on philosophy (one of his classes this past year). Among many topics was whether the penchant to reflect upon one's life is an innate trait or can be learned. To be honest, I was a bit shocked to think that there could be people who do not spend some time considering their life and its activities. My son posited that not only has he encountered such people but that some of them demonstrate much intelligence in other areas of life suggesting that the ability to reflect was separate from the ability to succeed academically. Let's hope that his classmates who appear non-reflective are guilty of youth only and will learn the wisdom of self examination.

Which brings me back to the special nature of today's date. New Years Day in general will often bring out our philosophical nature, which usually results in resolutions for the coming year. Of course, such a large percentage of these resolutions are broken. Perhaps one reason is that it is so hard to maintain that feeling of a new start or a new attitude that inspires these resolves. The days routines entrap us until we forget how the specialness of January 1st enhanced our reflections.

If that is even partly true, then consider this; 1/2/11 only happens once in your life. So does 1/3/11 and 1/4/11 and 1/5/11. We don't need special numerological events to consider each day unique, just the perspective to know that it is.

And so, my New Years Day resolution? To do the most simple and most difficult thing one can do; remember that each day only comes once in a lifetime and to look for the unique within the routine.

Unwinnable debates

In today's Philadelphia Inquirer there was a commentary about Sarah Palin and her ability to frame a debate, in this case the debate over American exceptionalism, so that it is difficult if not impossible for the opposition to "win" the debate; how did you win a debate in America where you argue against American exceptionalism?

The main point of the article was that Ms. Palin was displaying exceptionally good politics. The writer's counter point to Ms. Palin's skill was to recount President Obama's mishandled answer to a reporter's question on this topic when he was in France when the president said that he believed in American exceptionalism just as he suspected Brits believe in British exceptionalism, Greeks in Greek exceptionalism, etc. The writer also took a poke at the president for his belief in a nuclear disarmament.

The following is my response to the editor who wrote the column.

Dear Sir:

I read your commentary "Exceptionally good politics" which was published in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.

I assume you used the phrase "good politics" in discussing Sarah Palin's clever use of American exceptionalism to trap liberals into arguing the unwinnable because that is exactly what it is; politics. It doesn't solve any of the problems of the day, doesn't improve the employment picture, address the budget deficit, offer insight into halting climate change, suggest ways to solve the immigration question, etc, etc. No, it just proves that she is adept at sound bites and misdirection. I guess if that is all it takes to plow fertile political ground, we are all in trouble.

What is truly ironic is that Ms Palin is idolized by the Christian right. (She recently spoke at a local Christian school where she touched on the concept of American exceptionalism). My understanding of the teachings of Christ indicate that pride is one of the seven deadly sins. Perhaps, it wasn't that President Obama failed to understand the question about American exceptionalism, but that he understood fully the lessons of his Christian teachings concerning pride coming before the fall.

Sadly, Ms Palin and those who swim in rose colored memories of the past, are the very people who prevent America from solving our problems. They wrap themselves in the flag, blame gays, poor people and foreigners for our troubles and never once look in the mirror at the real culprits. We are all at fault for the problems of the day and only by working together can we solve these issues.

As for the fairy tale of nuclear disarmament, I feel sorry for you that you don't believe in it. Truly exceptional people dream the impossible and strive to make it so. To me, the vision of planet earth without war achieved in part by the example of the United States makes the goal of "good politics" seem incredibly average.

Joe Pugnetti

Priorities

It was announced today that Jason Werth, a baseball player who helped the Phillies win the World Series in 2008, signed a free agent contract with another team. The deal was for 7 years, $126 million dollars. Reaction has been diverse, but the consensus is that Jason, having already won a World Series ring, signed with a perennial losing franchise because they offered the most money, period. While the sheer volume of money seems surprising (Jason was a very good player, but not a great player), most comments give Jason (and his agent) credit for getting his big payday. After all, who wouldn't try to get the most money they could if someone wanted to overpay for their services?

Perhaps that is the root issue of our problems. We believe so much in capitalism and the opportunities that it provides that we are blind to the shift in priorities that have taken place in the recent past.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy sports. In fact, I probably spend too much time watching sports on TV and I enjoy talking sports with my friends. When I was able to attend Eagles games through my previous employer, I did so happily. I appreciated seeing a game in person and participating in the cheering, booing and general camaraderie of the moment. Clearly, I am as much at fault as anyone in driving the value of professional athletes' services through the roof.

But I would also like to think that I have this part of my life properly prioritized. Proof can be offered that with my recent early morning work requirement, I missed many of the Phillies playoff games and the 2nd half of all of the Eagles prime time games this year. As this happens more often, I find that it is becoming easier to walk away from the games. I would hope that I have and will continue to walk away when my family needs my time, as opposed to the "fan" who can't be approached by their spouse or children when the game is on.

Flash to the current debate over the tax cuts and unemployment compensation. Republicans want tax cuts for everyone, even those earning in the top 5% of incomes. They don't think it wise to raise anyone's taxes in a recession despite the added billions of dollars this will add to the deficit. Extending unemployment compensation however, is not OK with them unless we cut spending somewhere else to compensate for the added cost. Democrats want to raise the taxes of the rich but continue giving unemployment to people who have been receiving this aid for 99 weeks already. Each political party uses the rising deficit as a defense when the spending is for something they oppose but what do they value?

I believe that there is plenty of money in this country but that it is being disbursed in an extremely inequitable fashion. It is documented fact that the standard of living for the middle class (as defined by an income in the $40-90K range) has stagnated, while the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer. What does that say about our values?

I don't consider rich people immoral or greedy bastards. I don't think Republicans are stooges for the wealthy or unfeeling for the plight of the less fortunate. Nor do I believe that Democrats are only concerned about the downtrodden and don't legislate with an eye towards those that control the purse strings of business. Neither party is consistent in how their values decide their policies.

In the end, the problem lies in the answer to the question; who wouldn't go for as much money as possible? If we all agree that we would do the same as Jason, then the fault lies squarely at our feet. When we begin to demand that decisions be made with regard to people and not just profit, when material possessions and obsessions become prioritized behind a happy family, good friends, strong neighborhoods, equality for all people regardless of how they might be different from us, then perhaps, contracts like the one Jason Werth just signed and debates that pit aid for the less fortunate against less taxes for the super rich, might be a thing of the past.

Hereafter

I recently saw the Clint Eastwood movie "Hereafter". Before seeing it, I wondered if one of Clint's motivations for such a movie is his advancing age. I have spent some time ruminating about death and what is to follow, but I have found that it can be difficult to broach the subject with most people, especially the young (defined as under 40 or so).

Anyway, it is a huge subject, so any attempt to say something important in a 2 hour movie is certainly a challenge. Frankly, I was pleased with Clint's attempt, but not blown away. Perhaps because I have spent time thinking about the subject myself which made it hard for the movie to present any new information.

The main point I took from the movie is that there is an afterlife and that there is much scientific proof of its existence, in addition to all the religious myth. Clint presents a place where the awareness of the ex-human still resides and can be accessed by certain humans who possess the gift (or curse). The story follows a few recently dead people and those they left behind and attempts to portray that those who have passed can and sometimes will communicate an important piece of information that can help the survivors move on.

It is not a dramatic movie in the sense that there is a climactic scene of revelation, but it is certainly an interesting flick and one I would recommend.

Since I was raised a Catholic, I have presumably incorporated the heaven and hell version of life after death. Unfortunately, I often wonder if the popular perception of heaven and hell is accurate as I am convinced that the vast majority of people believe that they are going to heaven. One could argue that if life on earth is a test for the eternal thumbs up (or down) that there would be a stricter criteria to pass. (I am only referring to those that believe in heaven and hell although I would imagine that whatever your religious point of view, I would bet that more often than not, you believe you are going to earn the "reward"). In other words, does God grade on a curve?

What if God has more of a socialistic bent, meaning he rewards or condemns an entire generation or society as a whole? Was there spiritual progress or did mankind go backwards in its treatment of each other? Perhaps the entire society is judged based on how the least among them were treated by that society?

More likely, we will be judged individually, but again, what is the criteria. How much money we made? How many people we helped? Will it simply be the lesson from "Its a Wonderful Life"; were those you encountered better off for meeting you?

For all the talk about the United States being a Christian nation, it seems that our obsession with money and wealth suggests that we believe that our eternal judgement will be based on material possessions. No, you say?

Think about it for a minute. Is not success measured by your bank account and by how much money your job pays? When was the last time you saw a social worker being interviewed about the record they just set for helping the poor in their neighborhood? Do we flock to seminars which will teach us how to invest wisely and beat the market or to those that teach how to help find shelter for the homeless?

As self proclaimed Christians, one would think that our role model would be Christ, a person who spent his ministry with the outcasts of his time while reminding the rich that their chance of reaching heaven was the same as the chance of a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

Perhaps that is why it can be so uncomfortable to talk about what follows this life. It might sound harsh, but perhaps the hereafter may not be all that accommodating to a population where money is the first priority and the welfare of mankind barely a speck in the rear view mirror.

Invictus

I recently watched the movie Invictus. For those of you who have not seen it, I recommend it highly. In a nutshell, the story is based on the newly elected President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, and his use of the South African Rugby team to unite his country. 

For this blog, I would like to touch on two of the main themes which I took away from the story.

First and foremost is the portrayal of Mandela's understanding that he must convince the black citizens of South Africa to forgive the white minority for its years of Apartheid. In one scene, he responds to his security staff's request for more men by assigning a number of white officers. When the chief of security rightly points out that these men were most likely active in the arrest and harassment (and possibly worse) of blacks, Mandela asks him to forgive them and that only through this most powerful weapon, forgiveness, can the country be united. 

Later in the movie, when Mandela hears of a decision to suspend the rugby team (the Springboks), its colors (green and gold) and its national anthem (an Apartheid inspired song), he pleads with the committee to reconsider their vote. He explains that the team is part of the identity of the whites and that by denying them that identity they are acting no better than those who promulgated the awful Apartheid system. He tells the committee members that they must be better than their enemies and that, in fact, the white minority are no longer the enemy but partners in the new South Africa. 

Perhaps we should all consider this example when we next seek revenge against someone who wronged us. Whether it be on a personal level or country on country, the world would be such a better place if we acted to unite rather than fight. 

The other main point is that when Mandela is reminded that he is risking his presidency because the very people who elected him want an end to the Springboks. Mandela responds that the moment he worries about losing his elected position is the moment he loses the right to be the leader. He also says that sometimes the people are wrong and that it is his job as their leader to show them the correct way.

Of course, I know this was a Hollywood portrayal of Mandela and was certainly enhanced to make him appear bigger than life, but from what I have read the description of his capacity for forgiveness and for his great sense of responsibility to unite all of South Africa, I would bet it is not too far from the truth. 

Is it at all possible for our current president to act this way? We know he has the capacity to discern right from wrong. His push for more equal access to health care, his attempts to reign in the powerful money makers of Wall Street, his forward looking policies of creating green jobs and preserving our environment, and his moral (yes I said moral) understanding that discrimination against gay Americans violates our great founding documents all indicate the possibility of greatness. 

But to be called a great leader, one must take the populace forward, sometimes by telling them that they are wrong. And not just by saying it, but by telling us why through the use of plain words and personal examples. My bet is that for those on the fence, those that sense there is a rightness to Obama's agenda, this approach will be enough to earn him their respect and support.

Doing what we have to..

More than a month has passed since my last blog. Economic conditions were such that it was necessary for me to take a part time job; I am now delivering the Philadelphia Inquirer. (Yes, I am aware of the irony). 

This particular job requires me to awaken by 3:00 AM, drive to the warehouse in Doylestown to pick up the papers and do some prep work then drive back to the Perkasie area and service my route. The route entails much more driving that I expected, and is taking much more time than I anticipated, but is paying more money that I was looking for so the trade off is equitable. And since the work is done in the early morning hours, it doesn't effect my full time job as those hours are diverse, ranging from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM to as late as 1:15 to 9:15 PM. 

The key seems to be to maintaining the discipline of getting to bed by 9:30 (yes, even if the Phillies are on TV). Also, on most days I can sneak in a nap before going to the full time job. While it makes me sad that I have less time to write it is necessary so that we can stay economically comfortable.

A recent survey of Americans tried to establish the point where the happiness derived from income levels off. In other words, does more money make you happier. The research study questioned tens of thousands of people from all economic strata and established $75,000 as the level of income where happiness does not improve commensurate with an increase in income. If you google "money and happiness" you will see many reports on this study and you can choose any of them to get a slant of its meaning. If you have read my story The Change, then you know where I stand on this issue.

For us, before losing my job in January of this year, we were above that magic number and we were comfortable. We had paid down many debts and did not find too much month at the end of our money. Since then, we have fallen below that level and have found it necessary to examine very closely all monetary outputs. While I have never been a pursuer of money for its sake, I have certainly experienced more angst this past year as I try to maintain my family's standard of living with creative economics. But in the end, the numbers are the numbers, hence this second job.

Like any new job or new experience, delivering newspapers before sunrise has presented a number of surprises. First and foremost, there is a lot of wildlife out there that we never see in the daytime. Deer everywhere, especially in those new cookie cutter developments. Also, skunk, raccoon, possum, mice, moles, cats, dogs and cows. I can't see into the trees for fear of hitting one of the above (or a tree), but I would bet that there are many fowl about as well.

Also, I am beginning to like the dark. There is much less traffic, which enables me to drive on all parts of the road, but the dark itself seems much more comforting that I ever thought. At times, I resent the appearance of the sun as it brings out obstacles to my pleasant morning.

Finally and much to my surprise, people still tip their newspaper carrier! In the four pay periods I have earned so far, I have received tips amounting to about $75. It makes me mad at myself that I had not tipped my carrier before I began delivering my own paper but provides further proof that people are mostly considerate and good hearted. For those of you who have tipped in the past, whether it be your newspaper carrier or some other service provider (especially those unseen providers) congrats on your generosity. And for those who haven't, perhaps you might want to consider showing your gratitude in the future.

The Blame Game

As I have said many times before, I read the Phila Inquirer with special concentration on the commentary/opinion section. One opinion columnist that I respect and admire is Trudy Rubin. She demonstrates a strong understanding of our efforts and policies in the Middle East and, generally, maintains equanimity in her evaluation of the administration in charge, regardless of political party. The following is an email which I sent to her today.


Ms. Rubin,

While I agree with you that the anti-Muslim rhetoric is dangerous, I think we need to blame liberals as much as conservatives for the escalation, or more precisely, liberal politicians who are more concerned about winning an election than they are about stating the truth.

It is easy for you and I to write/blog that the current anti-Muslim trend runs contrary to our respect for individuals rights (freedom of religion) and the constitution (separation of church and state). But rather than taking a strong stand with facts and clear cut points of reason and fairness, many Democrats are straddling the line for fear of losing their seats in November. Even the President has waffled in his public statements on the issue.

The truly sad part is that this current blame-the-Muslims-for-everything is just an extension of the blame-the-gays which results in the anti-gay marriage movement or the blame-public-employees trend which pits everyday working Americans against their neighbors (who make about the same amount of money).

When an economy is struggling, it is easy to gain a following if you can find a scapegoat, so all of these dramas exist to distract Americans from the real source of our problems. The fact that our deficit is growing due to the Bush tax cuts that reduced our national income, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the shift of income from the middle class to the very rich and the aging of our nation is ignored because that would require us to face the hard truths about capitalism's problems, the militaristic streak of our politics and the notion that we have a divine right to an ever increasing standard of living.

You mentioned President Reagan in today's column. He is considered the saint of conservative politics yet everyone forgets that his approval ratings in his first term were even lower than President Obama's are now and that he doubled the national debt during his eight years in office. However, he slayed the communist dragon so today's conservatives/republicans have taken a page from his playbook, replacing the evil Soviet empire with today's bogeymen. It is clear that they will not only not work with President Obama but will do everything in their power to see him fail. And the Democrats, rather than standing up to them are caving because, unfortunately, they are really not that much better as they too are more concerned about staying in power than they are about governing.

Finally, the real fault lies with the American voter. And again, you won't hear many politicians or pundits blaming us. We cheer speeches that anoint us as the greatest nation in history then disprove that point by denying our fellow citizens the basic need for access to adequate health care and by encouraging legislation that defines marriage in a way that prevents some of our population from enjoying the emotional and economic fruits of this institution. We have such compelling issues to address and the best form of democracy in which to address them, yet we are lucky to see 30% turnout at primaries and get all excited if we reach 60% for November elections.

Anyway, this turned out to be longer than I expected. If you are interested, I have included a link to my blog of 9/12 and perhaps I will use this email to you for today's blog (I hope that is not a problem for you).

Thanks for whatever feedback you might provide,

http://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/09/testing-strength-of-our-freedom.html

Regards and respect,

Joe Pugnetti

Testing the Strength of our Freedom

This past Friday there was a huge amount of coverage allotted to the pastor in Florida who was planning to burn a Quran to mark the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. On one morning show (Morning Joe?), I heard comments by Pat Buchanan suggesting that the President use his executive power to block this pastor from executing his plan. Further, Mr. Buchanan stated that the president would be derelict in his duty to protect American soldiers if he did not prevent this burning as it has been expressed by more than one military leader that this horrific act might inspire terrorists to kill American soldiers. In other words, he was suggesting that the President suspend the First Amendment to justify government intervention to block the pastor's actions.

Let me make this clear. This pastor's planned act is reprehensible. It continually amazes me how God is used to justify the worst things imaginable. But should we deny him his right to express his opinion? Do you not think that somewhere in the United States, a Quran was burned yesterday anyway?

When asked how the Quran burning was any different than the controversy over the Mosque, how each could be used by terrorists to foment hatred for America and lead to the death of American soldiers, the advocates of preventing the Quran burning did not have a compelling answer. Both situations are being used to justify attacking Americans. Further, one might even say that the continued questioning of President Obama's religion (is he a Muslim or not?) could also be used as motivation to harm Americans. And clearly, the many articles written by columnists such as Charles Krauthammer who repeatedly claim that we are at war with Islamic extremists, could easily be interpreted by those very extremists that their belief that we hate Islam validates their killing of American soldiers. So, should the government act to silence all those voices, all those opinions that could be used to inspire acts by our enemies?

How many rights do we sacrifice in the name of protecting our freedom?

Is it our goal to repress any act which will inspire our enemies to violence? Perhaps we should stop killing innocent civilians in faraway countries. Don't you think that the simple fact that we have killed upwards of 75,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan might be causing some of the hatred towards America? I think that the fact that we have people in this country who are looking askance at Muslims because of 9/11 might give you some idea of how the people in those countries might feel about us.

Is it our goal to prevent Americans from dying in Afghanistan? Perhaps we should bring them home! I can't imagine a more direct way to prevent their death.

Our core beliefs are being tested. Do we only grant the important freedoms embedded in the constitution to those who agree with us, or to all people? Do we prove the worth of our form of government, one based on principles and laws by upholding those principles even when they are used to express opinions that are repugnant to us?

The ironic thing is that many of the countries with which we disagree, have governments that are religion based. We are appalled at the expression of those religions that treat woman as second class citizens and outlaw ideas that are not derived from their respective holy books. Yet at the same time, we have a movement in this country to define marriage so as to prevent a certain population from enjoying its benefits because of an interpretation of our holy book, the bible.

Lead by example. Isn't that what we strive for as parents? Perhaps we should evaluate our own actions as a country through this same prism.

Labor Costs and Jobs

This past Monday was Labor Day. My original intention was to post a blog discussing labor and jobs in some fashion but I changed my mind when I was inspired to write about the presidency.

Fortunately, a letter in today's Inquirer brought the topic back to center stage. The following is my response to an article written by Kevin Hassett called "Americans make too much". In it, he makes the valid point that salaries can and do interfere with the hiring practices of employers. He posits that if American workers' wages were lower then employers would be able to afford to hire more people. And, with more people working, more money would be spent for the products and services that employers make/sell. Here is my response sent to the Inquirer today:


To the editor:

According to Kevin Hassett in "Americans make too much", more jobs would be created if employers were able to pay everyone less money. My experience with the various companies that I have worked for over the years, both public and private, indicates that labor costs range from 40-60% of fixed costs, so his assertion that if we kept that figure static but decreased wages per person, employers would have the luxury of hiring more people. And, of course, more people working will result in more people spending which will generate demand for the products and services that the employers are selling, completing the cycle. Sounds logical.

What amazes me is that Mr. Hassett targets the salaries of the lowest wage earners. He seems to believe that simply having a job equates to having the money to buy. I guess he is unfamiliar with the working poor in this country who have one, two, sometimes three low paying jobs just to make the bills. I am sure that they would laugh at his belief that by lowering their wages, their participation in the economy will somehow increase.

Perhaps Mr. Hassett's theory would be better served if he targeted those making $5, $10, $20 million a year, or more. Reducing those salaries, even by $1 million per person, and again, assuming our premise that overall labor costs would remain static, would allow for higher salaries for the rest of the work force. Now, the everyday family might just have that extra money to upgrade an appliance, eat at a local restaurant, or by that new car, thereby generating more demand for products and services creating the demand for more jobs.

Isn't it clear that we have lost so many jobs in America precisely because employers have turned to cheaper labor, both in this country and especially abroad? Is it Mr. Hassett's intent to reduce our standard of living to that of China in pursuit of everybody having a job?

Full employment should certainly be our goal. But full employment that results in the continuation of income inequity that streams more money to less hands, is not good for everyday working Americans or for the long term recovery of our country.

The Presidency

Today I caught the last hour or so of the movie "The American President". For those unfamiliar with the story line, Michael Douglas plays the president who is in his third year of office. He is facing declining popularity numbers as well as an aggressive candidate who is using character attacks to position his own presidential run. 

One of the main attacks involves the fact that Michael Douglas (a widower) is seeing Annette Bening, an environmental lobbyist. There are a number of topics touched upon in the story, but the one that always sticks with me culminates in the scene where Michael Douglas finally decides to confront the Richard Dreyfus character who has been questioning his family values (for sleeping with Annette Bening while raising his daughter) as well as his patriotism (he is a member of the ACLU). In the scene, Michael Douglas is addressing the White House Press Corps and he summarily dismissed those character attacks while discussing the nature of both the Presidency and American Democracy. Of course, the movie has a Hollywood ending and we are left with the feeling that Michael Douglas will re-elected and will go on to govern in the people's best interests as opposed to governing to stay elected.

After the movie concluded, I immediately though of our current president, Barack Obama. I would think that most people would agree that he possesses a strong intellect. I am no expert on the presidents but I would imagine that his IQ, college and post graduate degrees and ability to command the English language, would rate him in the top 25% of presidents, if not higher. And I would also like to think that most people would agree that he worked as hard or harder than anyone to attain the measure of success he has achieved. 

He was certainly not born into privilege! 

To me, his story is an example of what most would consider one of the strengths of America; anyone can be president. His story is not just incredible from the historic standpoint of being the first African American President, but to have a Muslim father as well? It is truly a testament to both American Democracy and the voters who were able to look beyond what makes him different and connect with what makes him similar. Finally, I would like to think that most people would acknowledge that he has a vision for our future. His progress with a more universal health care system, his commitment to reducing nuclear weapons in the world, his push for cleaner energy sources and reduced environmental damage all point to a deep love for our country and its citizens and, on a bigger stage, the world and all its inhabitants.

So all that being said, why has his presidency been so fraught with pitfalls. Why are people still questioning his birth, his religion, his dedication to family values, his very patriotism? I certainly believe there is a tinge of racism involved, but we proved we can get beyond that ugliness by voting for him, so there must be more to it than that.

Perhaps the answer is that he is governing to not lose the next election rather than as a reflection of his beliefs. Like the American President, he has stopped listening to his heart and mind and is paying too much attention to polls and critics. Perhaps he needs to answer the voices of dissent by taking positions that he believes in as opposed to positions he thinks we want to hear.

For instance, when he first said that he thought that the Islamic Community Center should be built in the area of the 9/11 tragedy, he was reflecting a constitutional belief in the separation of church and state. But then he backtracked.

When he says he believes that gay marriage should be legal, he is reflecting his belief in the words of the Declaration of Independence which say that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. But then he backtracks to a water downed version of civil unions only.

When he advocates equal access to health coverage and care, he is reflecting his Christian values that profit should not be more important than the health and welfare of people. But then he cuts deals with the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.

When he negotiates historic treaties to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons and admonishes those rulers and countries who use war and violence to get their way, he is reflecting the basic teaching of love; do unto others... But then he escalates the war in Afghanistan and authorizes more drone bombings in Pakistan.

For me, I know Barack Obama will be a good president, certainly better than our last. But the first sign indicating that he might not be a great president occurred when he disavowed his promise to only use matching funds for his presidential campaign when it became clear that he would be able to raise even more money without that restriction. His first compromise, in this case the ideal that money should not be the source for one's ability to be elected.

Until President Obama internalizes the concept that great presidents are not defined by their longevity but by the principles from which they govern, it won't matter how the next few years transpire.

I know there is a risk to this strategy. In may be decided, in both the November 2010 elections and/or in the 2012 presidential election, that the American electorate are not in agreement that his vision matches their own. But if that be the case, wouldn't it be better that a lost election be about the American public's rejection of a clearly defined set of beliefs and vision as opposed to a lost candidacy due to an attempt to fashion the message in the least controversial way.

While I am disappointed with the percentage of registered voters and the actual voting rate, I still believe in both our system of government and the American voting public. While we may not always make the right choices we generally make them for the right reasons. Perhaps both President Obama and all those seeking election should show they believe in us as well by stating their positions, defending them with words and deeds, and allowing us to prove the strength of our beliefs and vision.

More about War

I am fortunate that most of the opinion letters that I send to the Perkasie News Herald are published. While I am not receiving much feedback from those letters, I know some people are reading them. The following is the letter I sent today.

To the editor:

In addition to the Perkasie News Herald, I am an avid reader of the Philadelphia Inquirer. I make a point of reading the opinion page, especially the readers' opinion letters that are published daily. When a letter writer has supplied their e-mail address, I will contact those readers with whom I disagree. I have started a number of correspondences in this manner and have exchanged numerous, civil e-mails in discussion of the topics of the day.

One such letter recently suggested that we should have bombed a city in Afghanistan (after telling them which city) after the 9/11 attacks rather than spending so much money and losing so many American lives. My response to the writer was as follows:

At first glance, the newspaper supplied title to your letter almost made me skip down to the next letter. But, as I have made an effort to read and respect everyone's opinion, I pressed on and read yours.

The gist of your letter seems to be that we should have used the full strength of our missiles and long range offensive weapons against our enemies rather then spending billions of dollars and wasting thousands of our own young American lives. Your premise is based on the reasoning that by demonstrating our willingness to use the sheer destructive power that we possess, our enemies will think twice about future attacks. It seems based on sound logical thinking.

Still, I see a few problems with the idea.

1. By warning Afghanistan ahead of time, the truly guilty for the attack of 9/11 will surely flee, leaving only the poor and innocent to be slaughtered by our weapons.

2. While this may save thousands of American lives, what about the thousands of Afghani lives that would be lost. Are their lives worth any less because they happen to live in Afghanistan?

3. While the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attack were Muslim, the vast majority of them were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama Bin Laden. In fact, many people believe that most of the funding came from the Saudis oil wealth. Shouldn't we then be bombing Saudi Arabia?

4. If we had bombed Afghanistan as you suggest, isn't it possible that this attack against innocent civilians would have galvanized those radical Muslims (and perhaps some moderates as well) in their belief that America is at war with their religion?

Not knowing you, I am assuming that your letter reflects an understanding that we have wasted a huge amount of money, time and American lives in the past nine years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I also assume that you are angry that all those resources have done little to exact revenge against the monsters who planned the attack. You lament our apparent impotence at gaining justice.

Perhaps it is not the method of how we seek revenge but the need to seek it that we should be questioning. Hatred breeds hatred. Let's not forget that we supported the Taliban in their war against Russia and that we supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. To many people of that region, we are only concerned with our interests, and we will use and/or kill anyone who opposes us. To think that we were brutally attacked on 9/11 for no reason, does a disservice to our intelligence. Revenge is what keeps this conflict alive. Turning our back on revenge, may be the only way to break the cycle.

Many of today's pundits believe that we are at war with Islam. The justification for waging that battle is the belief that Islam is at war with America. But if we continue to kill Muslims (remember, we have probably killed 75-100,000 of them since 9/11) in the name of rooting out terrorism, what other conclusion will some Muslims come to than that we are at war with them, therefore they should kill more Americans. And so it will go on and on.

How about if we show them that Christianity means more than just loving those who think like us, look like us, believe in the same things we believe. How about if we show them that the spirit of Christianity demands that we love our enemies as well. That we try, through examples of love and tolerance, to prove that we really believe in the teachings of Christ.

How about if we save all that money and all those lives by not seeking revenge at all?

Off to College

This past Saturday, I drove my son, JW, to begin the next stage of his life at Allegheny College. My, how college has changed over the years.

As an incoming freshman, he was required to be there a full five days before classes started. Both of us wondered what he would do for those five days but it was clear upon our arrival that Allegheny (and I would imagine, most private colleges) knew what they were doing. Right off the bat, they were organized. At the curb in front of his dorm we were greeted by a team of young adults whose sole purpose was to get his stuff out of my car and into his room. They reduced our 35 minute loading process to about 5 minutes to unload.

The orientation packet he received (one for each of us) clearly spelled out his agenda for arrival day right through to the first day of classes. Not that every minute was scheduled, but there were activities and meetings designed specifically to help him ease into this new life by bringing him together with his future class mates, dorm mates and teachers. There was also a concise but practical list of must-do's which included picking up his meal card, finding his post office box and submitting the paperwork for his work study job. And, of course, another guided campus tour to help him see the campus from the eyes of someone who has lived there for a year. I was impressed with the process and the people. And, to be honest, I was envious of this adventure that JW was about to begin.

After completing all the main tasks of the day, we spent some time with his room mate then had our last meal together, at least for a while. As he had two planned activities that first evening, I said goodbye and confidently left my first born to start his adult life.

So often when we drive a long distance, the trip towards our destination seems much longer than the trip home. In this case the opposite was true; it took forever for me to get home. Perhaps because it had been such a long day, or that I was traveling home alone. But, more likely it is because the son I left last Saturday at college would never be the same again, and I will dearly miss him.

In Memorium: Blackie

About five years ago, a black cat crossed my family's path.

It was a bitterly cold winter night when the cat appeared at our front door. He seemed friendly enough but since he was missing one of his canine teeth we weren't sure if he was just recently lost or had been in the wild for a while. That first night, we put him in our barn with some milk, a box and a blanket. The next night he was in our downstairs bathroom. Within a week, we had taken him to the vet for his shots and he was part of the family.

Since that time, we all grew to love Blackie despite and because of his active nature and frequent vocalizations. He was a wrestler who took on all comers. Whether wrestling with our other cat Sweettart or myself, he attacked with gusto but never malice. He was very affectionate, not necessarily a lap cat, but he always wanted to be with people. On the arm of a chair, walking across your keyboard, on a chair at dinner or just on the floor in whatever room was occupied, Blackie was there.

His need to be with people was reflected in his dislike for closed doors. Whether in the middle of the day or middle of the night, if you were in your room with the door closed he would meow outside of it until it opened. Yes, even the bathroom. At that time, he might or might not stay to visit, but that was his choice, not yours.

He loved going outside, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes for an hour but he almost exclusively stayed in our yards, especially the back yard where he could sniff the large variety of plants, roll in the patch of cat mint or lounge in the sun on the walkway. His love of the outdoors made going in or out a door a challenge as he developed a knack for hanging just far enough away to lull you in and then, boom, out he went.

When we went out as a family, he was at the front door when we returned. None of us were sure if he greeted us because he missed us or wanted to go out, but he was always there, nevertheless.

Unfortunately, as it is with pets, time began to catch up with Blackie. Visits to the vet became more frequent. When we had to put him in the hospital one day, we feared the worst. The first few times we visited, he could barely lift his head and even though he purred the entire time we were there, we were not hopeful. Then, on day five he began to eat. When we visited, he was able to walk around a little, and he even spent a few minutes cleaning himself. But, as sometimes occurs, it was his last good day. His temperature spiked, his kidneys began to fail and we were forced to make the decision to let him go.

Since he loved the back yard so much, we decided to bury him there. We placed him in the ground after an emotional ceremony, each of us tossing in some dirt through our tears and sobs.

Now, less than a week later, our home has changed. When I came home from work today, I didn't have to check if Blackie was lurking to dash out the door. There was no meowing at the bathroom door when I showered this morning. When I dangled my hand over the living room chair earlier tonight, no one pounced. And now, as I am keying this post, there is no distraction.

Blackie will be sorely missed.

The Mosque

There has been a lot of talk lately about the proposed building of an Islamic community center two blocks from the 9/11 site. Many people have expressed concern that it is insensitive to the victims' families of this horrible event that anything associated with the religion of the perpetrators of this odious act should be built within such close proximity. While I can understand why many Americans might be hesitant to accept an Islamic center (including a mosque) near the site of one of the most horrific events in our history, it surprises me that the rhetoric and vitriol have reached such levels. There are certainly Islamic fundamentalists who seek the destruction of America. But to condemn the billion (?) of so members of the entire religion seems un-American to me. The letter below was in response, not to someones opinion against the plan, but to thank the Inquirer for publishing an article that attempted to shed light on the hyperbole surrounding the proposal.

My experience so far with letters to the Inquirer have shown me that they need to be relatively short and to the point. I would have liked to expand my thought about fear and its seemingly far-reaching effects on our populace and hence our debates.

What do you think? Are we more fearful than in the past? Or is it my bias that the things we seem to be afraid of are not worthy of our fear? When we were afraid of a possible nuclear war with the Russians that seems more legitimate than being afraid of the Taliban.

Or, to be more conspiratorial, perhaps fear is the tool that our politicians use to distract us from the real problems that we face. Perhaps by demonizing the gay community or illegal aliens or the entire Muslim community, it enables our leaders to avoid the real problems that face our society.

Or maybe we just don't want to face the truth that we are all responsible for our problems so it is easier to blame someone else.



To the editor:

Thanks for publishing Stephen Salisbury's column concerning the proposed Islamic center in New York City. It was nice to gain some information about this issue that was fact-based rather than an ideologue tainted opinion. However, it surprised me that he did not mention Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf whose current Mideast mission was reported on page 3 of Saturday's Inquirer. Perhaps if the general public was aware of Rauf's position (with both the Bush and Obama administrations) "as a symbol of American religious freedom", and his connection with the proposed Islamic center there would be less room for our politicians to fan the flames of hatred and then take advantage of the public's fear of the proposed community center and mosque.

Which makes me wonder; when did Americans become such a fearful populace?

Whether it is in discussions of this mosque, or gay marriage, or national health care, or immigration, or even the deficit, it seems that so much of today's discourse centers around reasons to be afraid. Whether the fear leads to hatred of merely gives that emotion legs, our culture seems to have reached a point where we give into these emotions much more readily thereby enabling politicians and pundits to direct our feelings at their targets du jour.

Despite our faults, we are still the greatest country in the world. Perhaps we would be better served if we acted as an example for the positive through trust and cooperation rather than reacting to today's important challenges through the prism of fear and hatred.

The Change

Recently I have become aware of a challenge put forth by Bill Gates (I believe) to motivate the richest people of the world to donate 1/2 of their fortunes to charity. While I applaud this effort, it is not quite the same as the premise in the following story which I wrote unaware of this donation challenge. Again, I think that it is a tremendous idea for those with more to willingly give to those with less. But wouldn't it be more effective if those with such mega-billions had shared those great earnings with the employees of the companies whose hard work helped them make those fortunes? Personally, I would cap salaries at a level that should easily allow most people a standard of living that is sufficient for a comfortable way of life. However, as that would require more government intervention than most Americans are willing to allow, I would prefer that we embark on this path on a volunteer basis. The following story reflects that hope. 

                                         The Change 

Strangely enough, the change had begun from the actions of an athlete. Not one of those athletes who points to the sky whenever he performs admirably but clearly one whose spirituality matched his athletic prowess. He was twenty-eight years old, just in the midst of his prime, as he was reminded incessantly when he first proposed his idea. In the previous three years, he had led the league or been close to the top in every category that mattered, and it was expected that the negotiations for his next contract would set a new standard for compensation. When he first mentioned the plan to his agent, she immediately appealed to his wife, mother, and teammates, even going as far as bringing in star athletes from other sports to talk some sense into him. But to no avail. He was adamant that it was time for someone to make a stand and who better but someone who could maximize the effect. 

The process, as all significant social and economic changes are, was gradual and not readily noticed by the populace. In fact, at first the trend was a positive one. Starting after the second of two great world wars, there was impressive growth. And for the first 40 years or so, this growth penetrated virtually all levels of society. Within two generations, the ideas and ambitions of the best of the population helped drive the development of a thriving middle class whose labor made those ideas and ambitions come to fruition. This symbiotic relationship, while not completely inclusive of all people, for the first time bridged many of the gaps that had excluded women and minorities. But the growth was unsustainable. In retrospect, it seemed obvious that a slowdown or a time of flat growth was inevitable after such a meteoric rise. But expectations had risen as well and so rather than taking a breath and revising expectations, the country's leadership continued to stoke the belief in unfettered progress. When natural resources seemed to be straining, new technologies were developed to enhance the processes. When investments could no longer rely on new ideas and hard work to produce the required gains, new financial vehicles were created which traded on expectations, opinions and trickery. When people working together for a common goal no longer resulted in enough profit, influences were popularized that inflamed class warfare and class envy even as jobs were moved to areas and countries where labor was cheaper and profit could be maintained. 

Some said it was a purposeful slide, orchestrated by the haves to keep the have-nots in line, and confused about their degrading state. But if the truth be told, it was everyone, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, who let it happen. Rather than looking in the mirror in acknowledgement of individual responsibility, they continued to buy when they should have saved, to waste when they should have conserved, and to believe the easy answers rather than demanding that someone tell them the hard truth. And so, a mere four generations after the biggest surge in opportunity and standard of living ever experienced in history, the trend began to reverse. 

Where once school age children could by a ticket for a ball game on a sunny summer's day, now only the well-connected or lucky employees of a large corporation could afford to attend. 

Where once anyone could attend a college, even if just the local community college, now only those with status or money could attend an institute of higher learning. 

Where once, everyday people visited other parts of their country or even foreign lands, now only the rich even had vacations, let alone the money to spend on one. 

“I don’t want the money, at least not just for me”, he began. “I expect you to spend the hundred million dollars you are offering me but I only want fifty of the hundred million. The remainder you must split among all the non-players in this organization, all the people who work at the stadium, all the faceless workers who set the stage for this sport”. 

It took the organization a few months, but eventually they executed his request through direct bonuses and a trust fund to disperse the money over the course of the next four years as the contract stipulated. The owners and CEO did their best to keep the news a secret, but the secrecy did not last long. Surprisingly however, there was no need for the concern that drove their desire to keep the news from reaching the public. While there was certainly discord from many camps, the fans of the city quickly expressed their support. And the workers who had benefited from this unusual arrangement, displayed a new energy and pride in their jobs. 

Later that year, two other athletes in a different city demanded a similar contract but went even further. One of them took the same tact with regards to splitting the money but the contract of athlete number two required the “excess” money to be applied to a lowering of the ticket prices. As a result, a few Sundays after the contracts were signed, a standing room only crowd included thousands of fans who had not seen a game in person in their lifetime. From there, the trend spread to all of the other major sports. While competition on the field was still as intense as ever, the competition for innovative ways to share the wealth was just as feverish. Days featuring free food for all children in attendance, then games with free attendance for the children and their parents from entire elementary schools, then sporting events with no money changing hands at all. This is not to say that profit was removed from athletics. Business was still conducted, profit and loss still evaluated. But the idea that this was a game, played to entertain the everyday citizens who made the city work, became just as important. 

Due to the overlap of friendships among many star athletes and those in the entertainment business, the change next penetrated that industry. The first star to embrace the notion reduced the face value of the tickets for his 20 city tour by 50% over the previous tour. When some scalping was reported by some fans at the third stop of the tour, the entertainer made a 30 second commercial asking those responsible to stop while also asking his fans to stop paying the extra money. For the most part, his plea worked and three other big name acts matched his 50% reduction of tickets. Of course, at this point the movement was still a minor ripple. But as even the smallest pebble will create a wave that while tiny will still reach as far as the eye can see, news of these actions reached all levels of society. 

In the next year, a weekly series TV star took a 50% pay “diversion” which was passed along to the innumerable people who toil behind the scenes of every successful TV show. This same decision was quickly copied in short order by three movie stars, a radio talk show host, two television news anchors, and even an author who needed all her creativity to match the generosity of those who came before her. 

But the tipping point occurred when the CEO of one of the most profitable and influential companies in the country called for a press conference one beautiful spring afternoon. With press from all over the world in attendance, he calmly walked to the podium and made the following announcement. 

“Friends, family, members of the press, and those of you watching me live on the internet. As you know, in the past 2 years there have been some recent decisions by some high salaried individuals to share their compensation. This was accomplished in various ways, sometimes by strictly improving the salaries of the various support staffs, sometimes by passing along the difference to their fans and customers, sometimes a combination of both. Regardless of the method, the intent was the same; to reverse a trend that had led to an ever increasing income inequality in our country”. 

“When I first became aware of these individuals and their actions, I was skeptical. I had become so used to gauging everything by profit and loss that these actions seemed ludicrous. But, as you all know from my history, I am nothing if not interested in new ideas, new trends, new ways to improve my company. So, about three months ago, I held a weekend long meeting with the top minds in business today. We started with the premise that this trend might be bad for our companies and business in general. We studied the available numbers for those companies which had been affected by the change and found very little difference in profit. Salaries, which are always a significant percentage of a company’s expenses, had only changed by distribution, not quantity. But the biggest surprise was that in some cases, profits had inched upwards. How could that be? These companies were paying well beyond market value for all but one position yet profits were not affected”. 

The CEO stopped, took a short sip of water, then smiled. “So we went beyond the numbers and talked to the people involved. Those that had given back some salary were proud of their achievements. A few of the individuals told me that they still had plenty of money but were experiencing much more satisfaction from their lives. It wasn’t more money they needed, just more happiness, a feeling that they had made a difference. And on the other side, those everyday employees who had been taken for granted, felt more appreciated. They knew the support nature of their roles but had grown frustrated that no matter how hard they worked, they couldn’t get comfortable. There was always a lagging bill, always something out of reach. But now, they had that extra buck to get to a movie or replace an old appliance or spend a Sunday at the beach”. 

“And then we discovered something completely unexpected. The communities where these people lived were also experiencing an upswing in business. All that money that had gone exclusively to the top earners in the past was very rarely spent in the local area of the company. But a huge percentage of that diverted money was now staying in the communities. In short, it seemed to be a win-win situation and it made us reevaluate our original premise that perhaps those companies were not paying salaries beyond the market value of the work but were investing in their employees and the communities in which they worked and lived”. 

At this point, about a dozen men and women approached the podium. For those familiar with business, they were witnessing an unprecedented gathering of the movers and shakers of the business world. They exuded confidence and comfort. They seemed relaxed while still possessing an understanding that they were about to expand the change into a country wide movement. 

"Behind me you see many faces that you recognize. They are the faces of people who have accomplished a great deal in their lives. By any current standard of success, whether you use wealth, influence, power or possessions, they would be considered some of the most successful people in the country, if not the world. Together however, we have concluded that we may have missed the boat in some respects. We placed too much emphasis on personal wealth and the profitability of our companies, and not enough on the welfare of our employees and the communities in which we operated. We bought into the rationalization that we were providing jobs and forgot that if the jobs did not provide our employees with an acceptable standard of living, then we were not providing enough. In short, our bottom line focus sacrificed people for profit". 

"As you know, our influences extend beyond the direct holdings of our organizations; we sit on the boards of dozens of other corporations across a wide spectrum of industries. After hours of meetings with these boards, we are here to publicize a few simple changes to the operations of those businesses. A list of these companies and these alterations is being passed around now so you can see how widespread the change will be and so you can publish the names in hopes that those businesses not on the list will seek to follow our example. As you can see, the change will include a reduction of our personal compensation so everyone will know that we are so confident in this strategy that we are starting with our own salaries". 

The CEO stepped to the side of the group and raised his arm in their direction. "We have accomplished a great deal during our business careers. But too much of it has centered on ourselves at the expense of our fellow man. Today, we chart a new course where our accomplishments are shared more equitably with the people doing the work. A course which values the welfare of all our employees on a more equal footing with that of the corporation, and values the people of the community in which they live as an extension of those employees." 

With that, the CEO and the group of individuals with him departed the room. And while there was no instant revolution, the pendulum had been stopped. Over the next twenty years, the income gap between the top and bottom salaries began to diminish. The definition of rich no longer just included material possessions. While wealth still existed, excess wealth was definable, and avoided. Not because of a law but because it did not lead to the advance of the community. Business schools began teaching the concept of equitable compensation not just because it was fashionable but because it created a more motivated employee who produced a better product or service. Those in the entertainment industries accepted less compensation, not because they did not value their work but because they valued it as they valued other public servants; teachers, firefighters, police officers, and social workers. And so it didn't come as a big surprise when just three generations later, the definition of success had evolved from making a million to making a difference.