For most of my life I have heard the adult entertainment industry exploits women. From reasonably tame magazines such as Playboy to pornographic films to so-called Gentlemen's Clubs, they are all in the business of exploiting women, therefore this is all bad and such things should be shunned. I'm certainly in favor of banishing all things that exploit women, but I think we often miss the mark in our battles.
The traditional exploitation culprits are things I'm too familiar with. Before the age of 10, I was a regular reader of Playboy (but just for the articles), and many similar, less literate, more graphic magazines. At one stage of my life I spent so much time in a local strip club, that I was their version of Norm from Cheers. The manager would sometimes buy me drinks, the kitchen manager would give me free samples of meals he was experimenting with, the bouncers would all stop by and ask how I was, and nearly every dancer stopped by just to chat, give me a hug, or tell me their latest problem. I even worked briefly for a man who owned a large chain of adult book/video/peepshow businesses. I've been friends with porn stars, strippers and prostitutes. It will come as no surprise that many of the women involved in these occupations have been and continue to be exploited. What you may find surprising is that the exploitation often goes both ways.
There are many cases of women being forced into these industries by boyfriends, husbands, even by their own parents, and I've met several examples, including one who was sold to be a sex slave by her own mother, at the age of 12. Deplorable and despicable, I agree, but it happens and it will continue to happen. There are just as many cases where intelligent, driven women have realized the money men are willing to pay for just a look, for a few moments of fantasy. One very good friend was working as a waitress to help pay her way through college when she found out she could make more money waiting tables at a strip club. The pay increase was good, but the dancers were making a great deal more. Since she had studied dance most of her life, she realized she could make more in a few hours than she made in two weeks. She finished her degree and began dancing. Within a few years her income had soared. It took her about 10 years, but she managed to buy and pay off a nice house, a new car, a new Harley, travel all over the world and then quit dancing and, using money saved and contacts made, started a very successful traditional business. Now she's a married soccer mom/businesswoman. I have known several others who went the same route, with varying degrees of success. Who was exploited?
Let's get away from the seedy side and look at the traditional world, where women are not exploited. I grew up with certain knowledge about women's roles in the business world. Women could be secretaries, nurses, teachers or stewardesses (long before we had flight attendants), but most often they were homemakers. They cooked, cleaned and raised children. The implied assumption with working women is that they were having sex with the boss. Stewardesses with pilots, nurses with doctors and secretaries with the sort of person who is too important to write their own memos. If a woman wanted to move up in the business world, she had several options, but they all involved penetration. The Hollywood casting couch is a worn out cliche, but it is just a reflection of what women have always faced.
For much of the past 30 years strides have been made. In 1991, the trial of William Kennedy Smith for rape, even though he was acquitted, introduced us to the possibility that having sex with a woman too drunk to stand, might be wrong. Movies, such as "The Burning Bed" (1984) suggested that perhaps a man did not have the right to beat his wife. Although we still have a long way to go, great strides have been made and today there are very few occupations unavailable to women.
Don't get too excited just yet. There is still a long way to go, and recent trends have been to reverse those earlier successes. Recent laws in several states have made it clear that women are and will remain the servants of men. How independent can you be, when you are not even allowed to make decisions regarding your own reproductive system? It's hard to feel empowered when a rapist is either acquitted or given a laughable sentence because a judge has decided you were "probably as much in control of the situation" or because your manner of dress provoked the rapist. And let's not forget it is becoming nearly impossible, in many states to abort the pregnancy caused by the rape. Of course that is only right because such a result of rape is "A gift from God", and women don't get pregnant from rape, so bruises, bleeding, physical and emotional trauma aside, it's clear you couldn't have been raped.
If you're a man who wants a woman to wait on you, to cook, clean, fetch your slippers and be in every way your perfect menial slave, by all means go find a woman who wants this sort of life. They are out there. If you're having trouble finding one, you might consider the advice of Phil Robertson, the Duck Dynasty start at the heart of a recent controversy, get one that is still in high school. Find yourself a 15 or 16 year old, or maybe someone will sell you a 12 year old. Then you can train them to be what you want. Just don't be too surprised, if one day they come to their senses and you awaken to find your penis in the blender.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013
I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar
Clearly, I am not a woman, and I am not contemplating becoming one. Not that I have anything against women, or against any transgender person, but in the world we live in, wanting to become a woman would be very masochistic of me. Like everyone else, I have my perversions (yes, you have them too, you just may not recognize them, because they are normal to you), but being kicked, humiliated and walked upon just doesn't appeal to me.
My topic today is not one where I need to spend a few hours gathering enough material to fill up the space. Instead, I need to filter out 75% of what I would like to say to keep the size down to something people will be willing to spend the time reading. For many of you, I'm already past that point, for the rest, let's get down to business.
Unless you've spent your entire life under a rock, you should be aware that women are paid less to do the same job as men. Women are also not well represented in the top ranks of corporations or in government. Over the years, the imbalance has improved slightly, but there is a great deal of room for improvement. If you have a daughter get her interested in math and science, in technology and engineering. Don't limit her choices to the traditional roles.
The pay and employment discrepancy between men and women is only one small problem when compared to the many other problems in the way women are treated in our society. Women are subjected to violence, abuse, harassment and discrimination at a much higher rate than men, healthcare for women is subjected to much more regulation than healthcare for men.
One area where we have been going backwards is in reproductive healthcare. Several states have recently enacted very strict abortion laws that make getting an abortion, even to save the life of the mother, extremely difficult. There has also been a push to limit access to contraception for women. What this adds up to, is forcing women into a condition of sexual slavery. All that is required is for a man to get a woman pregnant and he is granted some control over her life. Even if his method was rape (more on that soon), he has (depending on state laws) forced the woman into motherhood, which often locks the woman into a life of poverty.
Many people use the Bible as justification for limiting or removing any access to abortion procedures. The only problem with this is the Bible is completely mute on the subject of abortion. The loosest interpretation might recognize a fetus as a person once it is able to live outside of the womb. Although the exact point is open for discussion it certainly does not occur until after the 20th week (survival is a possibility beginning sometime during the 21st week). For an excellent discussion on this, read this article:
What the Bible says about abortion
The obvious method to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are two readily available tools to accomplish this goal, and they have already been proven to be extremely successful. The first is contraception, it is inexpensive and extremely effective. The Catholic Church claims contraception is wrong. Over the centuries, the same church has claimed many things were wrong or right, things that would horrify most modern Catholics. Should we bring all of those things back as well?
One argument against contraception is that it encourages teens to have sex. Recently released data shows that teenage sex has remained constant, while access to contraception and improved education has resulted in a drastic decrease in teen pregnancy. In states where contraception is not as available and where adequate sexual education is not available, the teen pregnancy rate is much higher.
Here is a revelation for you: Teens are going to have sex. When I was a teen, teens were having sex. When my parents were teens, teens were having sex. When my great, great, great, great grandparents were teens, teens were having sex. There is nothing you can do to keep teens from having sex short of chaining them all up and binding them so they can't touch themselves. That is not going to change. No matter what you do, teens are going to have sex. Instead of focusing on what you can not change, why not deal with what you can change: contraception and education. By education, I mean true education, not the garbage that is called "abstinence only education". Because, teens are going to have sex. Telling a teen "just don't have sex" is the same thing as telling them "you're going to become a parent and maybe you'll pick up a disease or two along the way".
If you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. If you are opposed to teens having sex, talk to your teens, educate them, prepare them and then encourage them to wait. Don't just tell them no, it doesn't work.
Recently, a judge in Montana achieved notoriety by sentencing a rapist to 31 days in jail (with one day off for time served). The victim was a 14 year old student at the time of the rapes and the rapist was a 50 year old teacher. When the story about the rapes came out, the girl, age 16 at the time, committed suicide. Initially, the rapist was charged with 3 counts of "sexual intercourse without consent", but 2 counts were dropped and the third one would have been dropped if he had completed a sex offender treatment program. After he was kicked out of the program for violating the rules, he was then convicted of the crime, with a 15 year sentence. However, the judge felt the 14 year old girl had been in control of the situation so suspended all but 31 days of the sentence.
As you might imagine, this created a bit of a stir. The judge has tried to backpedal on his remarks and his sentence, but for now the damage has been done. This entire case is a travesty from the start and just goes to show how sick our society's attitude towards women is. A bit of research seems to indicate that sexual crimes against young girls tend to carry a shorter prison sentence than the same crimes committed against young boys. Using 2 examples that both recently occurred in Indiana, a man convicted of molesting a 9 year old boy was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Another man, charged with molesting 11 girls (ages unknown) had all but one charge dropped and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. The conclusion is simple, sexually abusing girls or women is acceptable.
All of this is a bit too much for me. I can't understand the violence, the discrimination and the abuse of women (I can't understand the same things when applied to any group but I am trying to stay focused). It is time we stopped blaming women for the crimes committed against them. It is time we stopped discriminating against women. It is time we realized that women need to be given the same rights and treatment as me.
My topic today is not one where I need to spend a few hours gathering enough material to fill up the space. Instead, I need to filter out 75% of what I would like to say to keep the size down to something people will be willing to spend the time reading. For many of you, I'm already past that point, for the rest, let's get down to business.
Unless you've spent your entire life under a rock, you should be aware that women are paid less to do the same job as men. Women are also not well represented in the top ranks of corporations or in government. Over the years, the imbalance has improved slightly, but there is a great deal of room for improvement. If you have a daughter get her interested in math and science, in technology and engineering. Don't limit her choices to the traditional roles.
The pay and employment discrepancy between men and women is only one small problem when compared to the many other problems in the way women are treated in our society. Women are subjected to violence, abuse, harassment and discrimination at a much higher rate than men, healthcare for women is subjected to much more regulation than healthcare for men.
One area where we have been going backwards is in reproductive healthcare. Several states have recently enacted very strict abortion laws that make getting an abortion, even to save the life of the mother, extremely difficult. There has also been a push to limit access to contraception for women. What this adds up to, is forcing women into a condition of sexual slavery. All that is required is for a man to get a woman pregnant and he is granted some control over her life. Even if his method was rape (more on that soon), he has (depending on state laws) forced the woman into motherhood, which often locks the woman into a life of poverty.
Many people use the Bible as justification for limiting or removing any access to abortion procedures. The only problem with this is the Bible is completely mute on the subject of abortion. The loosest interpretation might recognize a fetus as a person once it is able to live outside of the womb. Although the exact point is open for discussion it certainly does not occur until after the 20th week (survival is a possibility beginning sometime during the 21st week). For an excellent discussion on this, read this article:
What the Bible says about abortion
The obvious method to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are two readily available tools to accomplish this goal, and they have already been proven to be extremely successful. The first is contraception, it is inexpensive and extremely effective. The Catholic Church claims contraception is wrong. Over the centuries, the same church has claimed many things were wrong or right, things that would horrify most modern Catholics. Should we bring all of those things back as well?
One argument against contraception is that it encourages teens to have sex. Recently released data shows that teenage sex has remained constant, while access to contraception and improved education has resulted in a drastic decrease in teen pregnancy. In states where contraception is not as available and where adequate sexual education is not available, the teen pregnancy rate is much higher.
Here is a revelation for you: Teens are going to have sex. When I was a teen, teens were having sex. When my parents were teens, teens were having sex. When my great, great, great, great grandparents were teens, teens were having sex. There is nothing you can do to keep teens from having sex short of chaining them all up and binding them so they can't touch themselves. That is not going to change. No matter what you do, teens are going to have sex. Instead of focusing on what you can not change, why not deal with what you can change: contraception and education. By education, I mean true education, not the garbage that is called "abstinence only education". Because, teens are going to have sex. Telling a teen "just don't have sex" is the same thing as telling them "you're going to become a parent and maybe you'll pick up a disease or two along the way".
If you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. If you are opposed to teens having sex, talk to your teens, educate them, prepare them and then encourage them to wait. Don't just tell them no, it doesn't work.
Recently, a judge in Montana achieved notoriety by sentencing a rapist to 31 days in jail (with one day off for time served). The victim was a 14 year old student at the time of the rapes and the rapist was a 50 year old teacher. When the story about the rapes came out, the girl, age 16 at the time, committed suicide. Initially, the rapist was charged with 3 counts of "sexual intercourse without consent", but 2 counts were dropped and the third one would have been dropped if he had completed a sex offender treatment program. After he was kicked out of the program for violating the rules, he was then convicted of the crime, with a 15 year sentence. However, the judge felt the 14 year old girl had been in control of the situation so suspended all but 31 days of the sentence.
As you might imagine, this created a bit of a stir. The judge has tried to backpedal on his remarks and his sentence, but for now the damage has been done. This entire case is a travesty from the start and just goes to show how sick our society's attitude towards women is. A bit of research seems to indicate that sexual crimes against young girls tend to carry a shorter prison sentence than the same crimes committed against young boys. Using 2 examples that both recently occurred in Indiana, a man convicted of molesting a 9 year old boy was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Another man, charged with molesting 11 girls (ages unknown) had all but one charge dropped and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. The conclusion is simple, sexually abusing girls or women is acceptable.
All of this is a bit too much for me. I can't understand the violence, the discrimination and the abuse of women (I can't understand the same things when applied to any group but I am trying to stay focused). It is time we stopped blaming women for the crimes committed against them. It is time we stopped discriminating against women. It is time we realized that women need to be given the same rights and treatment as me.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
I Blame Obama
It has taken me awhile and I know many of you have been impatient with me, but finally I see the light. No matter what the problem is, President Obama is to blame. Initially I was fooled, but no more. I can clearly see that what we need is another George W. Bush.
There are several factors that kept me blinded to the facts for so long. First there is President Obama's diligence: If the trend continues he will have averaged about 37 vacation days per year, compared to 127 days per year averaged by President G.W. Bush. Then there is his restraint and attempts to work within the system: 147 Executive Orders in first term vs. 173 for Pres. Bush. There was also his desire to address pertinent issues affecting our country, such as the health care fiasco, racial and marriage inequality and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For over 5 years I've been denying what has been obvious to many Republicans ever since President Obama beat Senator McCain in 2008. But finally I can declare that everything truly is Obama's fault.
The clincher was the recent survey taken in Louisiana concerning the emergency response and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Over 70% of the people surveyed either believe President Obama is more at fault, or are unsure whether President Obama or President bush is more to blame for the massive failures of the response and recovery effort. But, wait! Wasn't Bush President and Obama just a first term Senator from Illinois? How could he have any blame at all? The problem is trying to apply logic and reasoning to the problem. The proper method is to start with the Universal Axiom: It's President Obama's Fault. Now the answer is clear. If President Obama had devoted his efforts to physics and engineering, he might have developed a machine capable of steering Hurricane Katrina away from Louisiana. With this in mind it is obvious President Obama is to blame for every hurricane, every tornado, every flood, earthquake and tsunami. Shame on you Mr. President! Shame!
Let's take a moment to think about the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare". I personally despise the term "Obamacare". At first I just thought it was an attempt to blind the people to the facts by placing in inaccurate and meaningless label on necessary legislation, but now it's because it is clear he doesn't care (since he did nothing to stop Hurricane Katrina, and don't get me started on AIDS, Michael Jordan's early retirement or The Holocaust). Sure the average cost of healthcare increases more than twice as fast as income increases, and the overall costs are spiraling out of control, but do we really need a law that guarantees everyone will have access to healthcare? Why can't we just rely on the insurance companies to do what they think is best? After all, they would never take advantage of us. Would they?
Besides, there is a much simpler solution to all of our healthcare problems. According to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News host, Mike Huckabee, instead of providing health care we should just find a cure for all of the diseases. With a mind like that, it is clear how he has become a part of the Fox News family. Of course, the only reason we haven't already cured every disease is because It's Obama's Fault (henceforth known as IOF).
It is time for us to seriously get down to business. We need to shut down the government, repeal the Affordable Care Act and Impeach the President because IOF. We need to persecute, punish and whenever possible, shoot and kill minorities because IOF. We need to deport all immigrants (unless the opportunity presents itself to shoot and kill them) because IOF. We need to remove all access to health care for women and put them back in the kitchen where they belong because IOF. We need to take all of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and put them back in the closet and then burn the closet. If they also happen to belong to an ethnic minority, shooting is an option. After all, IOF. Of course exceptions can be made for any of the above if they are willing to unquestionably and without fail vote republican (and stop acting so gay, lesbian or black).
We need to stop trying to feed, shelter and uplift the poor. If they didn't want to be poor, they wouldn't be poor (plus, IOF). After all, until Obama made the changes in the Bible, didn't Jesus really say "Screw the poor, they don't make campaign contributions"? Let's stop trying to deal with climate change and protecting our environment. Instead of worrying about the future of the planet we need to devote all of our resources to finding all the things in the world that can be blamed on President Obama.
Now I have to do laundry. I'm out of clean underwear and It's Obama's Fault.
There are several factors that kept me blinded to the facts for so long. First there is President Obama's diligence: If the trend continues he will have averaged about 37 vacation days per year, compared to 127 days per year averaged by President G.W. Bush. Then there is his restraint and attempts to work within the system: 147 Executive Orders in first term vs. 173 for Pres. Bush. There was also his desire to address pertinent issues affecting our country, such as the health care fiasco, racial and marriage inequality and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For over 5 years I've been denying what has been obvious to many Republicans ever since President Obama beat Senator McCain in 2008. But finally I can declare that everything truly is Obama's fault.
The clincher was the recent survey taken in Louisiana concerning the emergency response and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Over 70% of the people surveyed either believe President Obama is more at fault, or are unsure whether President Obama or President bush is more to blame for the massive failures of the response and recovery effort. But, wait! Wasn't Bush President and Obama just a first term Senator from Illinois? How could he have any blame at all? The problem is trying to apply logic and reasoning to the problem. The proper method is to start with the Universal Axiom: It's President Obama's Fault. Now the answer is clear. If President Obama had devoted his efforts to physics and engineering, he might have developed a machine capable of steering Hurricane Katrina away from Louisiana. With this in mind it is obvious President Obama is to blame for every hurricane, every tornado, every flood, earthquake and tsunami. Shame on you Mr. President! Shame!
Let's take a moment to think about the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare". I personally despise the term "Obamacare". At first I just thought it was an attempt to blind the people to the facts by placing in inaccurate and meaningless label on necessary legislation, but now it's because it is clear he doesn't care (since he did nothing to stop Hurricane Katrina, and don't get me started on AIDS, Michael Jordan's early retirement or The Holocaust). Sure the average cost of healthcare increases more than twice as fast as income increases, and the overall costs are spiraling out of control, but do we really need a law that guarantees everyone will have access to healthcare? Why can't we just rely on the insurance companies to do what they think is best? After all, they would never take advantage of us. Would they?
Besides, there is a much simpler solution to all of our healthcare problems. According to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News host, Mike Huckabee, instead of providing health care we should just find a cure for all of the diseases. With a mind like that, it is clear how he has become a part of the Fox News family. Of course, the only reason we haven't already cured every disease is because It's Obama's Fault (henceforth known as IOF).
It is time for us to seriously get down to business. We need to shut down the government, repeal the Affordable Care Act and Impeach the President because IOF. We need to persecute, punish and whenever possible, shoot and kill minorities because IOF. We need to deport all immigrants (unless the opportunity presents itself to shoot and kill them) because IOF. We need to remove all access to health care for women and put them back in the kitchen where they belong because IOF. We need to take all of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and put them back in the closet and then burn the closet. If they also happen to belong to an ethnic minority, shooting is an option. After all, IOF. Of course exceptions can be made for any of the above if they are willing to unquestionably and without fail vote republican (and stop acting so gay, lesbian or black).
We need to stop trying to feed, shelter and uplift the poor. If they didn't want to be poor, they wouldn't be poor (plus, IOF). After all, until Obama made the changes in the Bible, didn't Jesus really say "Screw the poor, they don't make campaign contributions"? Let's stop trying to deal with climate change and protecting our environment. Instead of worrying about the future of the planet we need to devote all of our resources to finding all the things in the world that can be blamed on President Obama.
Now I have to do laundry. I'm out of clean underwear and It's Obama's Fault.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Does Anyone Want The Last Donut?
Wednesday mornings and payday Friday afternoons were always the best, along with any day the receptionist woke up to discover she didn't have any clean work appropriate attire (the year was 1989, her appropriate attire was suitable for Hooters. In her inappropriate attire she could have sold condoms to the Pope). At the time, I was working as a Tech Writer for a company that specialized in Department of Defense contracting. Our office consisted of a Vice President, a Department Manager, five Tech Writers, three Word Processors, a Computer Support Tech and the aforementioned Receptionist.
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
Friday, August 9, 2013
Slavery: Now New and Improved!
For those of you who have been out of the loop, slavery has been illegal in the United States for the past century and a half. Many people are still wondering why? After all it seemed to be working out so well. The common assumption is the decision involved the dignity of human life, the inherent wrongness of slavery and the realization that all people deserve equal and fair treatment, regardless of their skin color. If you think for just a moment you'll realize how ridiculous that assumption is, since fair and equal treatment is still a long way off.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
The Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything
42
At least that's the answer Douglas Adams came up with in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I've come up with a different answer. It might even make sense, although I wouldn't count on that.
If you were to find three words to explain humanity, what words would you choose? My opinion is that all of human history can be summed up in three simple words: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. Everywhere you look, these three words seem to apply. Let's try some examples.
What is the one word parents say the most often to their young children? The answer is "no". Every time the child is about to do something wrong, or dangerous, a resounding "no" is heard. Usually the denial is a response to greed, the child wants something that is off limits. When denied their greed, overreaction sets in, often in the form of a tantrum. Check Genesis for the story of Adam and Eve: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. "You can't have this", "I really want this", "You are banished" (instead of just putting a fence around the off-limit fruit). That theme is repeated throughout the Old and New Testament.
Our history is also riddled with examples of the big three. Every war can be summed up by these three words and every major event as well. From prohibition to the civil rights movement, slavery to the cold war, it all revolves around denial, greed and overreaction. Take a look and see if I'm right.
In my opinion, the road to lasting peace and universal prosperity requires the ability to moderate and reduce the power of these three things. If the first two can be addressed, the third ceases to be an issue. Ecology and our environment are one place we might start. For years, (at least 50) scientists have been warning us about the potential harm of global warming (or mankind induced climate change, if you want to be technical about it). For years, there has been a very powerful lobby denying any possibility of such a problem. Even in light of significant evidence, the denial rages on, unchecked. Why? Very simple, greed. Combating and overcoming the damage that is being done to the environment will require drastic changes, changes resulting in lost or decreased revenue to many industries. The overreaction is to try and get as much now, before they are forced to curtail their indiscriminate raping and pillaging of the planet. When the changes finally come, they will most likely also involve an overreaction.
The problem with addressing these issues, is with the denial itself. The entities that stand to gain, will naturally deny any problem exists. That is to be expected. However, through propaganda and marketing, they are able to convince a significant segment of the population that no problem exists, thus, the problem itself can not be addressed until the will of the public is turned. Whether the issue is gun control or government spending, until the public accepts the existence of a problem, no solution can be sought.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to prevent the widespread public denial is to force the companies who gain from such denial, to disclose the truth about their operations and their knowledge of potential problems, and I see no way to do that. Congress could do it, but there is no way that they will. All we can try to do is to get people to look at the truth, look at the facts and understand the industries do not operate for our benefit. They operate solely for their own profit.
At least that's the answer Douglas Adams came up with in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I've come up with a different answer. It might even make sense, although I wouldn't count on that.
If you were to find three words to explain humanity, what words would you choose? My opinion is that all of human history can be summed up in three simple words: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. Everywhere you look, these three words seem to apply. Let's try some examples.
What is the one word parents say the most often to their young children? The answer is "no". Every time the child is about to do something wrong, or dangerous, a resounding "no" is heard. Usually the denial is a response to greed, the child wants something that is off limits. When denied their greed, overreaction sets in, often in the form of a tantrum. Check Genesis for the story of Adam and Eve: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. "You can't have this", "I really want this", "You are banished" (instead of just putting a fence around the off-limit fruit). That theme is repeated throughout the Old and New Testament.
Our history is also riddled with examples of the big three. Every war can be summed up by these three words and every major event as well. From prohibition to the civil rights movement, slavery to the cold war, it all revolves around denial, greed and overreaction. Take a look and see if I'm right.
In my opinion, the road to lasting peace and universal prosperity requires the ability to moderate and reduce the power of these three things. If the first two can be addressed, the third ceases to be an issue. Ecology and our environment are one place we might start. For years, (at least 50) scientists have been warning us about the potential harm of global warming (or mankind induced climate change, if you want to be technical about it). For years, there has been a very powerful lobby denying any possibility of such a problem. Even in light of significant evidence, the denial rages on, unchecked. Why? Very simple, greed. Combating and overcoming the damage that is being done to the environment will require drastic changes, changes resulting in lost or decreased revenue to many industries. The overreaction is to try and get as much now, before they are forced to curtail their indiscriminate raping and pillaging of the planet. When the changes finally come, they will most likely also involve an overreaction.
The problem with addressing these issues, is with the denial itself. The entities that stand to gain, will naturally deny any problem exists. That is to be expected. However, through propaganda and marketing, they are able to convince a significant segment of the population that no problem exists, thus, the problem itself can not be addressed until the will of the public is turned. Whether the issue is gun control or government spending, until the public accepts the existence of a problem, no solution can be sought.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to prevent the widespread public denial is to force the companies who gain from such denial, to disclose the truth about their operations and their knowledge of potential problems, and I see no way to do that. Congress could do it, but there is no way that they will. All we can try to do is to get people to look at the truth, look at the facts and understand the industries do not operate for our benefit. They operate solely for their own profit.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Welcome to my Nightmare
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, which is a fairly accurate depiction of this blog and my life. At least my insanity is completely non-violent, and usually keeps me smiling. Just make sure my crayon box is always kept full and we won't have any problems.
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
By its Fruits a Tree is Known
A few years ago I responded to something I saw written. I don't recall all of the details, but I remember there was great deal of hatred expressed towards some group, including a call to violence, followed by a request that people be good Christians. My response was to quote Luke, Chapter 6, verse 27 - verse 38. All of which is irrelevant to my subject, but it does connect my title with my content.
There are many who would argue that killing is sometimes a necessity, and with a bit of imagination, I can accept that as a possibility. Certainly it is possible, if someone were trying to kill you or your family, you might have to kill them to protect the innocent. There is nothing glorious about it, there is no reason to celebrate or gloat. A terrible thing has happened and only the worse terror prevented, makes the killing acceptable.
Unfortunately, once killing for a valid reason becomes acceptable, it is only a few steps away from killing for any reason being acceptable. War is an excellent example. Our countries official entry into World War II began on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2400 Americans including about 60 civilians. The war with Japan effectively ended August 9, 1945 after a second atomic bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nearly 250,000 people were killed, most of them civilians.
When someone is actively trying to kill you, the morality of defending yourself is not an issue. If you take the time to try and justify the actions you need to take, you will no longer be able to take those actions. Moral dilemma solved. Send flowers. But what if the person is a block away and on his way to kill you? Should you kill him before he gets close enough? What if he's just talking about killing you? At what point are you no longer justified to kill in self defense?
On the morning of September 11, 2001 a horrible attack occurred and in response we went to war with Afghanistan, which in my opinion was a rather large leap. In another questionable move we declared war on Iraq, mainly because Saddam Hussein was gloating. Estimates vary wildly over the number of Iraqis killed, from a low of just over 100,000 to over 1 million. Most estimates agree that about 60% of the deaths were civilians. No reliable estimates exist for deaths in Afghanistan, although it is doubtful the death toll is less than 50,000. Along with the wars, the United States decided to allow torture as a means of interrogation. Once upon a time, interrogation by any means was considered unacceptable.
Another of our actions, which continues to this day, is the use of drones to carry out attacks. Somewhere, a decision is made that a person, or several persons, needs to be killed, and an operator at a safe location flies a drone to the target and attempts to kill them. The justification is simple; they are a potential threat. Granted, they are a potential threat 7000 miles away, living in a shack 300 miles from the closest flush toilet, but still a potential threat.
If someone is running at you with a knife, take action, do what you need to do. But if someone in another country happens to talk about wanting to buy a knife, maybe we can hold off on killing them and everyone else who happens to be in the area. At least until after they actually get the weapon and get close enough to become a threat.
There are many who would argue that killing is sometimes a necessity, and with a bit of imagination, I can accept that as a possibility. Certainly it is possible, if someone were trying to kill you or your family, you might have to kill them to protect the innocent. There is nothing glorious about it, there is no reason to celebrate or gloat. A terrible thing has happened and only the worse terror prevented, makes the killing acceptable.
Unfortunately, once killing for a valid reason becomes acceptable, it is only a few steps away from killing for any reason being acceptable. War is an excellent example. Our countries official entry into World War II began on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2400 Americans including about 60 civilians. The war with Japan effectively ended August 9, 1945 after a second atomic bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nearly 250,000 people were killed, most of them civilians.
When someone is actively trying to kill you, the morality of defending yourself is not an issue. If you take the time to try and justify the actions you need to take, you will no longer be able to take those actions. Moral dilemma solved. Send flowers. But what if the person is a block away and on his way to kill you? Should you kill him before he gets close enough? What if he's just talking about killing you? At what point are you no longer justified to kill in self defense?
On the morning of September 11, 2001 a horrible attack occurred and in response we went to war with Afghanistan, which in my opinion was a rather large leap. In another questionable move we declared war on Iraq, mainly because Saddam Hussein was gloating. Estimates vary wildly over the number of Iraqis killed, from a low of just over 100,000 to over 1 million. Most estimates agree that about 60% of the deaths were civilians. No reliable estimates exist for deaths in Afghanistan, although it is doubtful the death toll is less than 50,000. Along with the wars, the United States decided to allow torture as a means of interrogation. Once upon a time, interrogation by any means was considered unacceptable.
Another of our actions, which continues to this day, is the use of drones to carry out attacks. Somewhere, a decision is made that a person, or several persons, needs to be killed, and an operator at a safe location flies a drone to the target and attempts to kill them. The justification is simple; they are a potential threat. Granted, they are a potential threat 7000 miles away, living in a shack 300 miles from the closest flush toilet, but still a potential threat.
If someone is running at you with a knife, take action, do what you need to do. But if someone in another country happens to talk about wanting to buy a knife, maybe we can hold off on killing them and everyone else who happens to be in the area. At least until after they actually get the weapon and get close enough to become a threat.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Sounds of Silence
Sometimes, the best possible thing to hear is nothing at all, at other times, silence is terrible. Ask any parent if you don't believe me. Communication takes many forms and is the backbone of civilization. Without our ability to communicate thoughts, feelings and ideas, nothing can be built, nothing can be learned. Without our written history, we would not have learned the futility of war. Oops. Forgot what century I was in, always a problem when you own a time machine. For those of you who plan to be around next century, I can just say, there is good news ahead.
Communication is active. It requires thought and participation. If the people you are speaking to are not listening or not thinking about your words, then you are not communicating, you're mouthturbating. To truly communicate, ideas and knowledge need to flow both ways, thoughts need to be shared, and this leads to growth.
I recent times, our country has gotten away from communicating. Thought and discussion are discouraged, and often not allowed. You either accept what has been said, without thought or reservation, or you become the enemy. Attempt a dialogue with anyone who expresses a belief you disagree with sometime and you'll understand. Facts are no longer nearly as important as volume and repetition. When the facts become to glaringly obvious to ignore, the issue is forgotten, never to be spoken of again and we are left with silence.
For the past several years I have heard almost constant complaints about unemployment, runaway deficits and the weak housing market. President Obama has been blamed exclusively by many, even though these problems were inherited from his predecessor. Recently, all talk about these issues has ceased, which is somewhat troubling, since these issues are supposed to lead to a total collapse and destruction of our country.
Last year, when unemployment rates began to fall, we heard a great deal of noise about doctored data, and misrepresentation. Then when the rates continued their slow decline, we heard only silence. Recently, the out of control deficits have been shown to be under control and falling steadily, with no response from those who spent 4 years harping on nothing else. Today I see that housing prices have been rising steadily for the past 3 months, last month posting their biggest gain since 2006. I expect to hear a great deal of nothing from the failed housing market crowd..
What all this indicates, is a recovering economy. While there is still much to be done, things are improving. Perhaps they will improve faster if our government can stop trying to score points and start trying to fix problems.
Communication is active. It requires thought and participation. If the people you are speaking to are not listening or not thinking about your words, then you are not communicating, you're mouthturbating. To truly communicate, ideas and knowledge need to flow both ways, thoughts need to be shared, and this leads to growth.
I recent times, our country has gotten away from communicating. Thought and discussion are discouraged, and often not allowed. You either accept what has been said, without thought or reservation, or you become the enemy. Attempt a dialogue with anyone who expresses a belief you disagree with sometime and you'll understand. Facts are no longer nearly as important as volume and repetition. When the facts become to glaringly obvious to ignore, the issue is forgotten, never to be spoken of again and we are left with silence.
For the past several years I have heard almost constant complaints about unemployment, runaway deficits and the weak housing market. President Obama has been blamed exclusively by many, even though these problems were inherited from his predecessor. Recently, all talk about these issues has ceased, which is somewhat troubling, since these issues are supposed to lead to a total collapse and destruction of our country.
Last year, when unemployment rates began to fall, we heard a great deal of noise about doctored data, and misrepresentation. Then when the rates continued their slow decline, we heard only silence. Recently, the out of control deficits have been shown to be under control and falling steadily, with no response from those who spent 4 years harping on nothing else. Today I see that housing prices have been rising steadily for the past 3 months, last month posting their biggest gain since 2006. I expect to hear a great deal of nothing from the failed housing market crowd..
What all this indicates, is a recovering economy. While there is still much to be done, things are improving. Perhaps they will improve faster if our government can stop trying to score points and start trying to fix problems.
A Few I Wish To Be Remembered
This was intended to be a Memorial Day Post, but, I didn't make it home until late. Since the person I wish to write about is long deceased, she probably won't complain.
There are many different images that Americans associate with Memorial Day: The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, Arlington National Cemetery and raising the flag at Iwo Jima are but a few. Mostly, we think of those men and women, fighting and dying in some war overseas. All of our military heroes didn't serve in that manner, and all that served in that manner were not heroes. I'd like to introduce you to a hero, that you may never have heard of, yet her legacy is amongst the most impressive of any who have served our country.
She was born in New York City in 1906. As a child she was intensely curious, dismantling alarm clocks to figure out how they worked. At the age of 17 she was admitted to Vassar, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a Bachelors Degree in Mathematics and Physics, in 1928. She followed with a Masters Degree in 1930 and a PhD. in Mathematics in 1934, both from Yale. She taught at Vassar from 1931 until 1943 when she took a leave of absence to join the US Naval Reserve.
This woman's name was Grace Hopper. More about her accomplishments in a moment. In 1966 she retired from the US Navy at age 60, but was recalled to active duty the following year. In 1971, she again retired, and was recalled again in 1972. In 1986 she was involuntarily retired from the US Navy, at the rank of Rear Admiral, just 4 months short of her 80th birthday. After retirement she worked as a consultant for Digital Equipment Corporation until her death in 1992.
During her long and distinguished Naval service, Admiral Hopper worked on some of the earliest computers. She helped design the UNIVAC 1, developed the first compiler and helped to develop the COBOL computer language. She also introduced the concept of machine independent programming. At the time, every computer understood just it's own machine language and nothing else. Without machine independent programming computer software would not exist and computers would still be something only the large corporations could afford.
Her ideas were an important factor when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) decided to develop DARPANet, which was the original name for the internet. Rather than the building sized computers she worked with, she envisioned smaller computers connected to a large scale network. She is also credited with coining the word "debugging" after a problem with the Mark II computer at Harvard University was found to be caused by a moth caught in a relay.
What does all of that mean? Without her work in the development of computer hardware and software, the personal computer might not exist. At the time, the majority of the people developing computers felt they were only good for simple calculations, but she envisioned them doing so much more. Her list of accomplishments is impressive, but even more impressive is that she achieved such success as a woman in an almost exclusively male world.
I intended to also do a detailed history of Admiral Hyman Rickover in this post, but that would require too much space. It's hard to cover a Naval career that lasted for 63 years under 13 different Presidents (Woodrow Wilson to Ronald Reagan), in just a few paragraphs. I'll just briefly touch upon his career.
Admiral Rickover was placed in charge of the program to develop nuclear energy for naval and commercial use in 1949. In only 5 years he was instrumental in the development, building and launching of the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered ship/submarine. He also helped develop the first pressurized water, commercial, nuclear power plant. Admiral Rickover, known as the father of the nuclear navy was in charge of the naval reactors program until forced to retire in January of 1982.
To date, there have been approximately 300 nuclear power plants used by the Navy over a 60 year span without a single nuclear incident (nuclear incident is relatively minor. Three Mile Island was a very minor nuclear accident, Chernobyl was a major one). This is all thanks to Admiral Rickover's belief that the very best was the least he would accept. During his tenure as head of the nuclear propulsion program, he personally interviewed every officer involved in the program, oversaw the design and construction of every nuclear powered vessel, and personally oversaw the development of the training program, NPS (Nuclear Propulsion School). He refused to budge on admissions standards or on criteria, to complete the program and become a nuclear propulsion plant operator.
During my Navy service, I just missed a close encounter with Admiral Rickover, due to a family emergency. Before being retired, Admiral Rickover made one last tour of the training facilities. At the time, I was a student at NPTU-IF (A1W) (the military loves acronyms: Naval Propulsion Training Unit Idaho Falls, A1W training plant. "A" for aircraft carrier, "W" for Westinghouse and "1" because it was the first A#W training plant). During the two weeks prior to the visit, training was mostly halted while students and instructors painted, polished and cleaned. The Admiral walked in, toured the plant, told them they should have spent their time fixing problems instead of painting and ordered the plant shut down until a major overhaul could be completed. This put my training, along with 100 of my classmates, in limbo. After a detailed plan was developed, and the worst of the problems were fixed, we were allowed to start the plant up and finish our training before the overhaul.
Unfortunately, Admiral Rickover stood in the way of a campaign promise. President Reagan had set a goal of a 600 ship navy, but the nuclear propulsion program could not provide enough operators at the standards required by Admiral Rickover. He also made the mistake of complaining (this was a man who literally screamed at more than one President. His complaints were not to be ignored.) about cost overruns in shipbuilding contracts. Technically he was responsible for the overruns, because when he found shoddy work had been done, he made the shipbuilder do it over, until it was done right. The government sided with the contractors, paying out over $600 million in cost overruns to Electric Boat. A short time later, the Electric Boat general manager was indicted on racketeering charges for demanding bribes from subcontracting companies. He is still a fugitive in his native country of Greece.
Take a few moments when you have the time and learn a little bit about these two people. There are many more like them who, even though they didn't stand directly in the line of fire, had a huge impact on our military and our country.
There are many different images that Americans associate with Memorial Day: The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, Arlington National Cemetery and raising the flag at Iwo Jima are but a few. Mostly, we think of those men and women, fighting and dying in some war overseas. All of our military heroes didn't serve in that manner, and all that served in that manner were not heroes. I'd like to introduce you to a hero, that you may never have heard of, yet her legacy is amongst the most impressive of any who have served our country.
She was born in New York City in 1906. As a child she was intensely curious, dismantling alarm clocks to figure out how they worked. At the age of 17 she was admitted to Vassar, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a Bachelors Degree in Mathematics and Physics, in 1928. She followed with a Masters Degree in 1930 and a PhD. in Mathematics in 1934, both from Yale. She taught at Vassar from 1931 until 1943 when she took a leave of absence to join the US Naval Reserve.
This woman's name was Grace Hopper. More about her accomplishments in a moment. In 1966 she retired from the US Navy at age 60, but was recalled to active duty the following year. In 1971, she again retired, and was recalled again in 1972. In 1986 she was involuntarily retired from the US Navy, at the rank of Rear Admiral, just 4 months short of her 80th birthday. After retirement she worked as a consultant for Digital Equipment Corporation until her death in 1992.
During her long and distinguished Naval service, Admiral Hopper worked on some of the earliest computers. She helped design the UNIVAC 1, developed the first compiler and helped to develop the COBOL computer language. She also introduced the concept of machine independent programming. At the time, every computer understood just it's own machine language and nothing else. Without machine independent programming computer software would not exist and computers would still be something only the large corporations could afford.
Her ideas were an important factor when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) decided to develop DARPANet, which was the original name for the internet. Rather than the building sized computers she worked with, she envisioned smaller computers connected to a large scale network. She is also credited with coining the word "debugging" after a problem with the Mark II computer at Harvard University was found to be caused by a moth caught in a relay.
What does all of that mean? Without her work in the development of computer hardware and software, the personal computer might not exist. At the time, the majority of the people developing computers felt they were only good for simple calculations, but she envisioned them doing so much more. Her list of accomplishments is impressive, but even more impressive is that she achieved such success as a woman in an almost exclusively male world.
I intended to also do a detailed history of Admiral Hyman Rickover in this post, but that would require too much space. It's hard to cover a Naval career that lasted for 63 years under 13 different Presidents (Woodrow Wilson to Ronald Reagan), in just a few paragraphs. I'll just briefly touch upon his career.
Admiral Rickover was placed in charge of the program to develop nuclear energy for naval and commercial use in 1949. In only 5 years he was instrumental in the development, building and launching of the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered ship/submarine. He also helped develop the first pressurized water, commercial, nuclear power plant. Admiral Rickover, known as the father of the nuclear navy was in charge of the naval reactors program until forced to retire in January of 1982.
To date, there have been approximately 300 nuclear power plants used by the Navy over a 60 year span without a single nuclear incident (nuclear incident is relatively minor. Three Mile Island was a very minor nuclear accident, Chernobyl was a major one). This is all thanks to Admiral Rickover's belief that the very best was the least he would accept. During his tenure as head of the nuclear propulsion program, he personally interviewed every officer involved in the program, oversaw the design and construction of every nuclear powered vessel, and personally oversaw the development of the training program, NPS (Nuclear Propulsion School). He refused to budge on admissions standards or on criteria, to complete the program and become a nuclear propulsion plant operator.
During my Navy service, I just missed a close encounter with Admiral Rickover, due to a family emergency. Before being retired, Admiral Rickover made one last tour of the training facilities. At the time, I was a student at NPTU-IF (A1W) (the military loves acronyms: Naval Propulsion Training Unit Idaho Falls, A1W training plant. "A" for aircraft carrier, "W" for Westinghouse and "1" because it was the first A#W training plant). During the two weeks prior to the visit, training was mostly halted while students and instructors painted, polished and cleaned. The Admiral walked in, toured the plant, told them they should have spent their time fixing problems instead of painting and ordered the plant shut down until a major overhaul could be completed. This put my training, along with 100 of my classmates, in limbo. After a detailed plan was developed, and the worst of the problems were fixed, we were allowed to start the plant up and finish our training before the overhaul.
Unfortunately, Admiral Rickover stood in the way of a campaign promise. President Reagan had set a goal of a 600 ship navy, but the nuclear propulsion program could not provide enough operators at the standards required by Admiral Rickover. He also made the mistake of complaining (this was a man who literally screamed at more than one President. His complaints were not to be ignored.) about cost overruns in shipbuilding contracts. Technically he was responsible for the overruns, because when he found shoddy work had been done, he made the shipbuilder do it over, until it was done right. The government sided with the contractors, paying out over $600 million in cost overruns to Electric Boat. A short time later, the Electric Boat general manager was indicted on racketeering charges for demanding bribes from subcontracting companies. He is still a fugitive in his native country of Greece.
Take a few moments when you have the time and learn a little bit about these two people. There are many more like them who, even though they didn't stand directly in the line of fire, had a huge impact on our military and our country.
Friday, May 24, 2013
What Goes Up Must Come Down
Last week I came across a report from the Congressional Budget Office on deficit projections. The gist of the report is, the deficit is dropping at a higher rate than previously projected. The current deficit is at approximately the same level as when President Obama took office and if the trend continues, the deficit will continue to decrease for the next 10 years. The report also shows that healthcare and medicare costs are decreasing and will continue to decrease for several years, at least until my generation hits retirement age, then these costs will become a major issue.
I've been waiting for some type of response from the government or the media on this report, but mostly it has gone unnoticed. The Republican party is completely incapable of seeing any news that might reflect favorably on the Obama Administration. Maybe if we had a Marine hold an umbrella over it they would notice. The few words from the Democrats show concern that the deficit is dropping too fast, so we need to increase spending to protect the economy.
The deficit decrease comes from three sources: reductions in government spending, an improving economy and elimination of some tax cuts for the wealthy. With all the screaming I've heard over the past four years about out of control deficits, I wish I could say I'm surprised those same people aren't stepping up and saying "we were wrong". Instead they are going crazy over umbrellas.
At its recent peak, the federal debt was the highest it has been since the end of World War II when compared to gross domestic product (GDP). Here is a fascinating graph (if you're the sort to become fascinated with graphs) showing this:
You will notice how World War II caused a significant spike followed by 30 years of decreased debt, which bottomed out at the end of our involvement in Vietnam and then remained steady until President Reagan took office. For the next 15 years the debt increased, followed by 5 years of reductions during President Clinton's second term. The debt increased slightly during President GW Bush's time in office and then took a dramatic leap. Now time for the explanation.
During World War II our GDP dropped significantly while government spending skyrocketed. After the war, GDP leaped ahead and continued to grow for the next 25 years. Even with the wars in Vietnam and Korea, increased GDP, a thriving economy and high tax rates for the top income brackets caused a steady reduction of public debt. What changed? In 1980, President Reagan took office and one of his first acts was to reduce taxes for the wealthy. The theory, commonly referred to as "Reaganomics" was that if the wealthy had more money, they would spend it in ways that would help the middle and lower classes. Strangely, it didn't work that way. GDP fell as the wealthy sought more ways to maximize their wealth. Manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas to save labor costs, further reducing tax revenues. Meanwhile, welfare and unemployment costs continued to rise.
Throughout the Reagan years and President Bush's one term debt continued to grow until President Clinton's tax increases brought about a significant decrease. During President GW Bush's time in office, tax cuts for the wealthy were partially offset by a healthy economy (brought to you courtesy of the Clinton years, however increased military spending caused a steady increase in debt, which began to skyrocket when Wall Street melted down.
From 1936 through 1980 the top tax bracket in the United States never dropped below 70% with a high of 94% in 1944 and 1945. In 1981, this dropped to 69.125%, then dropped to 50% until 1987 when it reached 38.5%. From 1988 to 1991 the rate dropped to 28%, a level not seen since the Great Depression. There was a slight increase to 31% for 1991 and 1992 and then President Clinton took office. From 1993 until 2000 the top rate remained at 39.6%. A drop to 39.1% happened in 2001, followed by a drop to 35%, which is where it remained until the recent increase back to 39.6%.
The problem with changing the top tax rates is the delay factor. When you cut the rate, nothing appears to happen, so you cut it again, and again and again. By the time a problem becomes apparent, the rate is much lower than where the problem first began. Rather than backtracking and undoing the changes which brought on the problem, the reaction has been to find other solutions. If your kids are playing baseball in the backyard and your windows keep getting broken, the problem isn't going to be fixed by buying new bats.
Unless your taxable income is over $379,150 an increase in the top tax rates will not affect you. If your taxable income is over that level, you can decrease your tax burden by investing in your business or investing in your community. It's time to realize that the deficit problem we are dealing with has one, and only one, simple solution. Undo the tax reductions that brought us into this mess in the first place.
I've been waiting for some type of response from the government or the media on this report, but mostly it has gone unnoticed. The Republican party is completely incapable of seeing any news that might reflect favorably on the Obama Administration. Maybe if we had a Marine hold an umbrella over it they would notice. The few words from the Democrats show concern that the deficit is dropping too fast, so we need to increase spending to protect the economy.
The deficit decrease comes from three sources: reductions in government spending, an improving economy and elimination of some tax cuts for the wealthy. With all the screaming I've heard over the past four years about out of control deficits, I wish I could say I'm surprised those same people aren't stepping up and saying "we were wrong". Instead they are going crazy over umbrellas.
At its recent peak, the federal debt was the highest it has been since the end of World War II when compared to gross domestic product (GDP). Here is a fascinating graph (if you're the sort to become fascinated with graphs) showing this:
During World War II our GDP dropped significantly while government spending skyrocketed. After the war, GDP leaped ahead and continued to grow for the next 25 years. Even with the wars in Vietnam and Korea, increased GDP, a thriving economy and high tax rates for the top income brackets caused a steady reduction of public debt. What changed? In 1980, President Reagan took office and one of his first acts was to reduce taxes for the wealthy. The theory, commonly referred to as "Reaganomics" was that if the wealthy had more money, they would spend it in ways that would help the middle and lower classes. Strangely, it didn't work that way. GDP fell as the wealthy sought more ways to maximize their wealth. Manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas to save labor costs, further reducing tax revenues. Meanwhile, welfare and unemployment costs continued to rise.
Throughout the Reagan years and President Bush's one term debt continued to grow until President Clinton's tax increases brought about a significant decrease. During President GW Bush's time in office, tax cuts for the wealthy were partially offset by a healthy economy (brought to you courtesy of the Clinton years, however increased military spending caused a steady increase in debt, which began to skyrocket when Wall Street melted down.
From 1936 through 1980 the top tax bracket in the United States never dropped below 70% with a high of 94% in 1944 and 1945. In 1981, this dropped to 69.125%, then dropped to 50% until 1987 when it reached 38.5%. From 1988 to 1991 the rate dropped to 28%, a level not seen since the Great Depression. There was a slight increase to 31% for 1991 and 1992 and then President Clinton took office. From 1993 until 2000 the top rate remained at 39.6%. A drop to 39.1% happened in 2001, followed by a drop to 35%, which is where it remained until the recent increase back to 39.6%.
The problem with changing the top tax rates is the delay factor. When you cut the rate, nothing appears to happen, so you cut it again, and again and again. By the time a problem becomes apparent, the rate is much lower than where the problem first began. Rather than backtracking and undoing the changes which brought on the problem, the reaction has been to find other solutions. If your kids are playing baseball in the backyard and your windows keep getting broken, the problem isn't going to be fixed by buying new bats.
Unless your taxable income is over $379,150 an increase in the top tax rates will not affect you. If your taxable income is over that level, you can decrease your tax burden by investing in your business or investing in your community. It's time to realize that the deficit problem we are dealing with has one, and only one, simple solution. Undo the tax reductions that brought us into this mess in the first place.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Singing In The Rain
There's just something special about a good umbrella. It plays a key role in "Bus Stop" by The Hollies, and Gene Kelly uses one to good effect while "Singing in the Rain". The umbrella even makes a cameo appearance in the Wizard of Oz. Many years ago, baseball great Lou Brock invested in a company that tried to combine the best features of a ball cap and an umbrella the "Brockabrella". When you have to be out in the rain, it's really hard to beat a good umbrella.
The downside of an umbrella (but not a Brockabrella) is that it requires a free hand to hold it. This is fine if you're walking down the street, or leaving your Presidential helicopter and walking to your Presidential limousine, but makes life rather difficult when you're standing at a podium trying to deliver a speech. It's also difficult to pull off when you have a beer in one hand and a hot dog in the other.
There are times when we schedule events that require good weather. It may be something as simple as a backyard barbecue, or a trip to an amusement park. If the weather doesn't cooperate, you have the option of either changing your plans or cancelling them altogether. Maybe you have someone hold an umbrella for you while you tend the grill, or maybe you spend the day at the hotel's indoor pool and put off the Disney World trip for another day. When I lived in the Seattle area, we just ignored the rain and went on with our plans regardless of the weather. Sometimes you just have to deal with soggy buns.
Some occasions can't be cancelled, postponed or moved inside. If you've planned an opulent outdoor wedding and a surprise shower pops up in the middle of the vows, it's rather difficult to pack it all up and move inside. The same is true of a White House press conference. If the press conference is scheduled outdoors, then everything has to be set up. All the cameras and microphones need to be in place, along with the flags and podiums. Barring extreme weather, moving inside is not a reasonable option.
Last week, during a joint press conference with the Turkish Prime Minister, President Obama asked for two Marines to hold umbrellas for him and the Prime Minister. Suddenly, we have another scandal. It is against the Marine Corps uniform regulations for male Marines to use or carry an umbrella while in uniform. Doesn't the President have any respect for the Marines? Can't he hold his own umbrella? After all, according to Sarah Palin, "most Americans hold their own umbrellas".
Apparently, it's okay have someone else hold your umbrella, only if you're Sarah Palin.
There are several different things President Obama could have done in this situation. The first, most obvious is to just ignore the rain and finish the press conference. In lieu of that, he could have held his own umbrella, thereby forcing the Turkish Prime Minister to also hold an umbrella. He could have also offered an umbrella to the Prime Minister and done without, or used an umbrella without offering one to his guest. Why didn't he do any of these things instead of committing the most heinous offense possible by asking two Marines to hold umbrellas?
Here is a word you may want to write down on a slip of paper, have laminated and carry with you at all times. It is a word of great power, a word that allows two families that hate each other to be civil for a wedding. It is a word that allows countries with completely different ideologies sit down to work out their differences. It's a word that prevents me from screaming "You're an idiot", several times each day. That word is "Diplomacy".
Diplomacy requires the President to extend courtesy and equal treatment to his guest, so an umbrella becomes a diplomatic necessity. What you can't see in the photos, explains why he didn't force the Prime Minister to hold the umbrella himself. On the podium are prepared notes, either on index cards or paper. Reminders of what the Prime Minister wants to say, prepared answers to expected questions and maybe a few witticisms. Shuffling through those notes requires two hands unless the Prime Minister wants to look like a bumbling fool. Once again, diplomacy comes to the rescue.
To clear up the final point, while it is against regulations for a Marine to carry or use an umbrella while in uniform, the President is well within his rights to request 2 Marines to hold umbrellas. It's not like he was asking 851 of them to die over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. For the Marines involved, their friends and family get to see them looking their best on national TV and no one is shooting at them.
In the middle of all the ridiculous Republican mud-slinging over trivialities, not a single word has been said about the Congressional Budget Office's report that the Federal deficit is shrinking at much higher rate than previously projected. Currently the deficit is at approximately the same level it was when President Obama first took office and will continue to drop for the next decade, barring any massive changes. But all of that is fuel for another day. For now, I propose Presidential Brockabrellas for everyone.
The downside of an umbrella (but not a Brockabrella) is that it requires a free hand to hold it. This is fine if you're walking down the street, or leaving your Presidential helicopter and walking to your Presidential limousine, but makes life rather difficult when you're standing at a podium trying to deliver a speech. It's also difficult to pull off when you have a beer in one hand and a hot dog in the other.
There are times when we schedule events that require good weather. It may be something as simple as a backyard barbecue, or a trip to an amusement park. If the weather doesn't cooperate, you have the option of either changing your plans or cancelling them altogether. Maybe you have someone hold an umbrella for you while you tend the grill, or maybe you spend the day at the hotel's indoor pool and put off the Disney World trip for another day. When I lived in the Seattle area, we just ignored the rain and went on with our plans regardless of the weather. Sometimes you just have to deal with soggy buns.
Some occasions can't be cancelled, postponed or moved inside. If you've planned an opulent outdoor wedding and a surprise shower pops up in the middle of the vows, it's rather difficult to pack it all up and move inside. The same is true of a White House press conference. If the press conference is scheduled outdoors, then everything has to be set up. All the cameras and microphones need to be in place, along with the flags and podiums. Barring extreme weather, moving inside is not a reasonable option.
Last week, during a joint press conference with the Turkish Prime Minister, President Obama asked for two Marines to hold umbrellas for him and the Prime Minister. Suddenly, we have another scandal. It is against the Marine Corps uniform regulations for male Marines to use or carry an umbrella while in uniform. Doesn't the President have any respect for the Marines? Can't he hold his own umbrella? After all, according to Sarah Palin, "most Americans hold their own umbrellas".
Apparently, it's okay have someone else hold your umbrella, only if you're Sarah Palin.
There are several different things President Obama could have done in this situation. The first, most obvious is to just ignore the rain and finish the press conference. In lieu of that, he could have held his own umbrella, thereby forcing the Turkish Prime Minister to also hold an umbrella. He could have also offered an umbrella to the Prime Minister and done without, or used an umbrella without offering one to his guest. Why didn't he do any of these things instead of committing the most heinous offense possible by asking two Marines to hold umbrellas?
Here is a word you may want to write down on a slip of paper, have laminated and carry with you at all times. It is a word of great power, a word that allows two families that hate each other to be civil for a wedding. It is a word that allows countries with completely different ideologies sit down to work out their differences. It's a word that prevents me from screaming "You're an idiot", several times each day. That word is "Diplomacy".
Diplomacy requires the President to extend courtesy and equal treatment to his guest, so an umbrella becomes a diplomatic necessity. What you can't see in the photos, explains why he didn't force the Prime Minister to hold the umbrella himself. On the podium are prepared notes, either on index cards or paper. Reminders of what the Prime Minister wants to say, prepared answers to expected questions and maybe a few witticisms. Shuffling through those notes requires two hands unless the Prime Minister wants to look like a bumbling fool. Once again, diplomacy comes to the rescue.
To clear up the final point, while it is against regulations for a Marine to carry or use an umbrella while in uniform, the President is well within his rights to request 2 Marines to hold umbrellas. It's not like he was asking 851 of them to die over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. For the Marines involved, their friends and family get to see them looking their best on national TV and no one is shooting at them.
In the middle of all the ridiculous Republican mud-slinging over trivialities, not a single word has been said about the Congressional Budget Office's report that the Federal deficit is shrinking at much higher rate than previously projected. Currently the deficit is at approximately the same level it was when President Obama first took office and will continue to drop for the next decade, barring any massive changes. But all of that is fuel for another day. For now, I propose Presidential Brockabrellas for everyone.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust
Having just read a story, about the burial of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, I'm feeling as disgusted as I have felt in quite some time. Apparently, Tsarnaev was buried at a small Muslim cemetery near Doswell, Virginia. Local residents are outraged and county officials are trying to determine if any laws were broken, so that the body can be removed from the county. The concern is over having the body of a criminal buried in the county.
Local authorities are upset because they were not informed, before the fact, of the burial. Is there some requirement I'm unaware of, requiring government approval for funerals? Does every corpse have to pass a background check prior to burial? "We're sorry, but the deceased does not meet our requirements at this time. You might check back with us in six months to see if our requirements have changed."
How many murderers, rapists, and pedophiles have been buried in Virginia? Do your neighbors have the right to object to who is buried in the local cemetery? Since discrimination against the living is becoming less acceptable every day, will we now shift the focus to the deceased? "I'm sorry sir, but our records show that your father was 17% African-American, but the plot you purchased is in the white only section. We'll have to move the burial to the back of the cemetery." Will there be a smoking section for cremated remains?
Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead, deceased, departed, no longer amongst the living. I predict that he will commit no more crimes, nor will he carry out any more terrorist attacks. Why not worry more about taking care of the living, than punishing the deceased? If the local residents are so worried, why not ask Tsarnaev's neighbors if they have a problem with him being buried there. I'm betting that not a single corpse will complain unless he plays his stereo too loud at 3am.
Regardless of what we have done in life, once death claims us, shouldn't that be the end? At that point, shouldn't reward or punishment be no longer a concern of the living? Perhaps Hanover County, Virginia has some other problems to worry about.
Local authorities are upset because they were not informed, before the fact, of the burial. Is there some requirement I'm unaware of, requiring government approval for funerals? Does every corpse have to pass a background check prior to burial? "We're sorry, but the deceased does not meet our requirements at this time. You might check back with us in six months to see if our requirements have changed."
How many murderers, rapists, and pedophiles have been buried in Virginia? Do your neighbors have the right to object to who is buried in the local cemetery? Since discrimination against the living is becoming less acceptable every day, will we now shift the focus to the deceased? "I'm sorry sir, but our records show that your father was 17% African-American, but the plot you purchased is in the white only section. We'll have to move the burial to the back of the cemetery." Will there be a smoking section for cremated remains?
Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead, deceased, departed, no longer amongst the living. I predict that he will commit no more crimes, nor will he carry out any more terrorist attacks. Why not worry more about taking care of the living, than punishing the deceased? If the local residents are so worried, why not ask Tsarnaev's neighbors if they have a problem with him being buried there. I'm betting that not a single corpse will complain unless he plays his stereo too loud at 3am.
Regardless of what we have done in life, once death claims us, shouldn't that be the end? At that point, shouldn't reward or punishment be no longer a concern of the living? Perhaps Hanover County, Virginia has some other problems to worry about.
Finally, A Gun You Can Make Yourself
By now everyone has heard the news, a plastic gun, created on a 3D printer, has been successfully built and test fired. The inventor, Cody Wilson, through his non-profit organization, Defense Distributed, envisions a gun that can be built by anyone, anywhere (anyone, anywhere that has a computer, an internet connection and access to a 3D printer). Congratulations and good work! I was worried about being able to find some way to buy a gun. Now all I need is a few thousand dollars for a 3D printer, which is much better than spending less than $300 to buy one of the several thousand guns for sale within a 50 mile radius.
The idea behind a printed gun is to make sure that, through gun regulation, the government can not disarm the American public. Very clever indeed, except for one minor problem, there is no lobbying group spending millions of dollars to prevent any legislation governing the use of 3D printers. The fact, the gun is likely to explode in your hand isn't so much a problem as a design feature. I suggest you wear eye protection.
This may come as a surprise to some people, but you do not need a 3D printer to make your own gun. With about $100 worth of hand tools, dedication and some work, you can make your own gun out of steel. If the hard work doesn't appeal to you, for about 1/3 the cost of a 3D printer, a small milling machine can be used to make all the parts, and steel, tends to stand up better than plastic. Plans for all types of guns are available online, or simply buy a gun, disassemble it and make your own blueprint. The only thing Defense Distributed has done is make homemade guns available to the people who are too lazy to do the work themselves.
The downside of having a homemade plastic gun, which may explode when fired, is that such a gun is very difficult to detect. Earlier, because I neglected to bring either my phone or a book to the bathroom, I designed ammunition for a plastic gun that eliminates about 85% of the metal in a normal cartridge. Muzzle velocity will drop considerably, but the weapon should still be effective and would easily make it past airport security checkpoints. That's right, despite hundreds of billions spent to ensure another attack, such as 9/11, never happens again, we are now only a few months and a low fiber diet away from an almost certain attempt.
I admire the spirit of invention and am proud of all the inventors and innovators who are doing their best to make the world a better place. Through their hard work and dedication, millions of people now have access to safe water and food and millions are protected from deadly disease. Our pioneers help bring housing, education and medical facilities to people around the world. We cure disease, help overcome famine and reduce suffering and misery. Now we can add "cause death and destruction" to our resume. Actually, that has long been our main export, it just isn't polite to brag.
In recent years, the trend has been to classify every problem as a disease. Once something becomes a disease, it is treatable, billable and profitable. Perhaps it is time to classify Second Amendment Paranoia as a disease. I'm sure the drug companies can come up with candy coated Wellbutrin as a treatment and through counseling and drugs we can help these SAPs return to normal, productive lives.
The idea behind a printed gun is to make sure that, through gun regulation, the government can not disarm the American public. Very clever indeed, except for one minor problem, there is no lobbying group spending millions of dollars to prevent any legislation governing the use of 3D printers. The fact, the gun is likely to explode in your hand isn't so much a problem as a design feature. I suggest you wear eye protection.
This may come as a surprise to some people, but you do not need a 3D printer to make your own gun. With about $100 worth of hand tools, dedication and some work, you can make your own gun out of steel. If the hard work doesn't appeal to you, for about 1/3 the cost of a 3D printer, a small milling machine can be used to make all the parts, and steel, tends to stand up better than plastic. Plans for all types of guns are available online, or simply buy a gun, disassemble it and make your own blueprint. The only thing Defense Distributed has done is make homemade guns available to the people who are too lazy to do the work themselves.
The downside of having a homemade plastic gun, which may explode when fired, is that such a gun is very difficult to detect. Earlier, because I neglected to bring either my phone or a book to the bathroom, I designed ammunition for a plastic gun that eliminates about 85% of the metal in a normal cartridge. Muzzle velocity will drop considerably, but the weapon should still be effective and would easily make it past airport security checkpoints. That's right, despite hundreds of billions spent to ensure another attack, such as 9/11, never happens again, we are now only a few months and a low fiber diet away from an almost certain attempt.
I admire the spirit of invention and am proud of all the inventors and innovators who are doing their best to make the world a better place. Through their hard work and dedication, millions of people now have access to safe water and food and millions are protected from deadly disease. Our pioneers help bring housing, education and medical facilities to people around the world. We cure disease, help overcome famine and reduce suffering and misery. Now we can add "cause death and destruction" to our resume. Actually, that has long been our main export, it just isn't polite to brag.
In recent years, the trend has been to classify every problem as a disease. Once something becomes a disease, it is treatable, billable and profitable. Perhaps it is time to classify Second Amendment Paranoia as a disease. I'm sure the drug companies can come up with candy coated Wellbutrin as a treatment and through counseling and drugs we can help these SAPs return to normal, productive lives.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Blessed Are the Children, Blessed With Children
Today has been a good kid day, even though I only spent about 45 minutes out and about. Now to see if I can explain "good kid day" satisfactorily. For some reason, children seem to be attracted to me, whether in a restaurant or a grocery store, small children stare, smile and even laugh at me. Either they think I'm a nice guy, or I look really funny to them. As long as the kids are happy, it doesn't matter. A good kid day is when happy, healthy and loved kids smile, laugh, stare at or talk to me. A bad kid day is when the children just scream in the distance while the parents demonstrate their lack of parenting skills.
I had to go pick up my new glasses and go get something substantial for lunch. Sixty hours without an actual meal was too long for me to be satisfied with a can of soup and a piece of toast. At the eye doctor's office (Dr. Tavel at Greenwood Park Mall, really nice people) there was a mother in front of me with an infant sleeping in a stroller and a young girl probably about 6 years old. The little girl happily told me she was there to get new glasses, that her current glasses were for at home and the frames were cranberry. She needed a pair of glasses for school and a pair of outside glasses, and she wanted at least one of the frames to be green. Depending on your interpretation, she was either cute and adorable, or really annoying. I'll go with cute and adorable. As a bonus, her mother was actually paying attention and moved her away before there was any risk of her becoming annoying.
After the eye doctor, I headed to Ryan's for lunch. Ryan's is not exactly haute cuisine, but there are some things I like about eating there. Sometimes, without asking, they give me the senior discount, saving me a few dollars. I can also have a nice big salad, three or four different vegetables and maybe even some fresh fruit. Plus, it's only three blocks from home, so I don't have to invest a lot of time in lunch.
I did something today that I rarely do, sit at a table next to a table with two small children and two young women. At first I was confused because the two women were both young (15 and 18) and obviously sisters. Who was the mother of the children? The answer was not immediately obvious, neither were the ages. However, I have a nasty habit of listening to whatever conversations are going on around me, and since they were the only talkers within range, I learned about them. The younger of the two had just recently turned 15, and her son was 3 months old. Her sister, I'm guessing was 18 and her daughter 10 to 12 months old. Both children appeared happy, healthy and well cared for and both mothers seemed to be happy, intelligent and good single parents.
In theory, any girl capable of becoming pregnant, and giving birth is also capable of being a good mother and history is full of good mothers who were barely in their teens when they earned their title. In practice, good mothers seem to be at least as rare as virgin brides, and I am not drawing any correlation between the two. Quite often, a very young mother will gladly let the grandparents raise the baby, because being a mother tends to really restrict a teenagers social life.
For as long as I can remember, there has been worry over teenage pregnancy. Every few years the subject will become the media's fair-haired child as if it is somehow a new problem. After today's experience, I have to wonder if teenage pregnancy is a problem. Unwanted pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy are both problems. Pregnancy for people who are unsuited or incapable of being good parents is a problem, but there is no age where a woman automatically becomes a good parent. Being 16 doesn't make you a good driver, being 18 doesn't make you an informed voter and being 21 doesn't make you a responsible drinker.
Becoming good at anything requires knowledge, practice and desire (desire by itself is where the problems come from). Very few schools give anything more than a short, clinical description on human reproduction and even fewer have anything on the curriculum about parenting. Any mention of birth control causes an uproar worse than if the school required all girls to wear chastity belts (a law I expect Indiana to propose any day now). In short, there is no readily available path to becoming a good parent, other than observation and trial and error. If you want to become good at any sport or any occupation there are camps and programs and schools galore to help you achieve your goal. Where is the summer camp for potential parents? Instead, we give them one day each year to get cards and flowers and hope they become good parents without ruining or ending too many lives.
Perhaps it is time to rethink our entire education system. Along with teaching the children how to conjugate, maybe we need to teach about reproduction and parenting. At least make it an available option. Imagine a world where every parent is a good parent. For one thing, it would make eating out a much more enjoyable experience.
I had to go pick up my new glasses and go get something substantial for lunch. Sixty hours without an actual meal was too long for me to be satisfied with a can of soup and a piece of toast. At the eye doctor's office (Dr. Tavel at Greenwood Park Mall, really nice people) there was a mother in front of me with an infant sleeping in a stroller and a young girl probably about 6 years old. The little girl happily told me she was there to get new glasses, that her current glasses were for at home and the frames were cranberry. She needed a pair of glasses for school and a pair of outside glasses, and she wanted at least one of the frames to be green. Depending on your interpretation, she was either cute and adorable, or really annoying. I'll go with cute and adorable. As a bonus, her mother was actually paying attention and moved her away before there was any risk of her becoming annoying.
After the eye doctor, I headed to Ryan's for lunch. Ryan's is not exactly haute cuisine, but there are some things I like about eating there. Sometimes, without asking, they give me the senior discount, saving me a few dollars. I can also have a nice big salad, three or four different vegetables and maybe even some fresh fruit. Plus, it's only three blocks from home, so I don't have to invest a lot of time in lunch.
I did something today that I rarely do, sit at a table next to a table with two small children and two young women. At first I was confused because the two women were both young (15 and 18) and obviously sisters. Who was the mother of the children? The answer was not immediately obvious, neither were the ages. However, I have a nasty habit of listening to whatever conversations are going on around me, and since they were the only talkers within range, I learned about them. The younger of the two had just recently turned 15, and her son was 3 months old. Her sister, I'm guessing was 18 and her daughter 10 to 12 months old. Both children appeared happy, healthy and well cared for and both mothers seemed to be happy, intelligent and good single parents.
In theory, any girl capable of becoming pregnant, and giving birth is also capable of being a good mother and history is full of good mothers who were barely in their teens when they earned their title. In practice, good mothers seem to be at least as rare as virgin brides, and I am not drawing any correlation between the two. Quite often, a very young mother will gladly let the grandparents raise the baby, because being a mother tends to really restrict a teenagers social life.
For as long as I can remember, there has been worry over teenage pregnancy. Every few years the subject will become the media's fair-haired child as if it is somehow a new problem. After today's experience, I have to wonder if teenage pregnancy is a problem. Unwanted pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy are both problems. Pregnancy for people who are unsuited or incapable of being good parents is a problem, but there is no age where a woman automatically becomes a good parent. Being 16 doesn't make you a good driver, being 18 doesn't make you an informed voter and being 21 doesn't make you a responsible drinker.
Becoming good at anything requires knowledge, practice and desire (desire by itself is where the problems come from). Very few schools give anything more than a short, clinical description on human reproduction and even fewer have anything on the curriculum about parenting. Any mention of birth control causes an uproar worse than if the school required all girls to wear chastity belts (a law I expect Indiana to propose any day now). In short, there is no readily available path to becoming a good parent, other than observation and trial and error. If you want to become good at any sport or any occupation there are camps and programs and schools galore to help you achieve your goal. Where is the summer camp for potential parents? Instead, we give them one day each year to get cards and flowers and hope they become good parents without ruining or ending too many lives.
Perhaps it is time to rethink our entire education system. Along with teaching the children how to conjugate, maybe we need to teach about reproduction and parenting. At least make it an available option. Imagine a world where every parent is a good parent. For one thing, it would make eating out a much more enjoyable experience.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Great White North
I'm freshly returned from my first visit to Canada in 25 years and my first visit to the province of Ontario. My three previous visits, all to Vancouver, British Columbia, were in 1984, 1986 and 1988, with 1984 being the only time I actually went through the border crossing. The other two trips, I entered Vancouver by ship, thanks to the U.S. Navy.
After 25 years, I didn't notice any real changes in Canada, even though the two areas are 2700 miles apart. The country looked clean, the people were very polite, nice and friendly and the drivers were courteous and attentive. Spending 18 hours in a country does not make me any sort of expert, all I have are my initial impressions, which I should have ample opportunities to reinforce, since I will be making this trip twice a week.
My trip included a stop in London and Mississauga, Ontario (ON). London is a city of about 365,000 and the little bit I saw of it, looked about like any U.S. city of that size. Other than drivers on the road, I saw no one on my brief stop there. Mississauga, population 720,000, is part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). While in Mississauga, I had the chance to meet a few people. While waiting to unload my truck, and waiting for paperwork, seven people walked by, including the only two people I will be interacting with on a regular basis. Six of those people stopped, introduced themselves, shook my hand and took time for a few moments of small talk. The seventh didn't introduce herself, but made sure that I knew where the coffee was located and wished me a nice day.
Seven people taking a moment to be nice may not seem like a big deal to you, but it does to me. Five of those people will never need to interact with me and at least two will only see me a few times each year, and then, only in passing. There have been people I've worked with for several years who never gave me more than a nod or a grunt if I told them good morning. I can't recall how long it's been since six complete strangers offered me a handshake. The people just seem to be happier and nicer than my fellow Americans.
No where was this quality more obvious than on the highways (which are in much better shape than our own). I experienced some heavy traffic conditions, but did not see any road rage. While driving nearly 400 miles in Canada, I only saw one obvious case of inattention. I can't drive one mile here without seeing at least four instances. People were not on their cell phones, they weren't texting, they were just driving. If I put on my turn signal to make a lane change, people slowed and made room to accommodate me. The people behaved as if: A. Driving was important, and B. Traffic was a common occurrence. Imagine that.
The GTA is roughly half the size of the Washington, DC metropolitan area, with similar population, this makes the population density in Toronto about double of that in Washington. Typically, the higher the population density, the higher the crime rate, especially the rate of violent crime. However, Toronto averages about 3.3 homicides per 100,000 population compared to 21.9 for Washington, DC. Robbery statistics show similar discrepancies, 207 to 650/100,000. These numbers are after Washington, DC had experienced a 50% reduction in violent crime rates.
Canada has a much greater ethnic diversity than the United States. While all ethnic groups are represented here, most are clumped together in reasonably small, isolated areas. I'm certain this occurs in Canadian cities as well, but it doesn't seem to be the issue it is here. Perhaps there are a few things on immigration we might learn from our northern neighbors.
I'm certain Canada has its problems and drawbacks, but from what little I've seen of it, it's a great country to visit and maybe a nice place to live.
After 25 years, I didn't notice any real changes in Canada, even though the two areas are 2700 miles apart. The country looked clean, the people were very polite, nice and friendly and the drivers were courteous and attentive. Spending 18 hours in a country does not make me any sort of expert, all I have are my initial impressions, which I should have ample opportunities to reinforce, since I will be making this trip twice a week.
My trip included a stop in London and Mississauga, Ontario (ON). London is a city of about 365,000 and the little bit I saw of it, looked about like any U.S. city of that size. Other than drivers on the road, I saw no one on my brief stop there. Mississauga, population 720,000, is part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). While in Mississauga, I had the chance to meet a few people. While waiting to unload my truck, and waiting for paperwork, seven people walked by, including the only two people I will be interacting with on a regular basis. Six of those people stopped, introduced themselves, shook my hand and took time for a few moments of small talk. The seventh didn't introduce herself, but made sure that I knew where the coffee was located and wished me a nice day.
Seven people taking a moment to be nice may not seem like a big deal to you, but it does to me. Five of those people will never need to interact with me and at least two will only see me a few times each year, and then, only in passing. There have been people I've worked with for several years who never gave me more than a nod or a grunt if I told them good morning. I can't recall how long it's been since six complete strangers offered me a handshake. The people just seem to be happier and nicer than my fellow Americans.
No where was this quality more obvious than on the highways (which are in much better shape than our own). I experienced some heavy traffic conditions, but did not see any road rage. While driving nearly 400 miles in Canada, I only saw one obvious case of inattention. I can't drive one mile here without seeing at least four instances. People were not on their cell phones, they weren't texting, they were just driving. If I put on my turn signal to make a lane change, people slowed and made room to accommodate me. The people behaved as if: A. Driving was important, and B. Traffic was a common occurrence. Imagine that.
The GTA is roughly half the size of the Washington, DC metropolitan area, with similar population, this makes the population density in Toronto about double of that in Washington. Typically, the higher the population density, the higher the crime rate, especially the rate of violent crime. However, Toronto averages about 3.3 homicides per 100,000 population compared to 21.9 for Washington, DC. Robbery statistics show similar discrepancies, 207 to 650/100,000. These numbers are after Washington, DC had experienced a 50% reduction in violent crime rates.
Canada has a much greater ethnic diversity than the United States. While all ethnic groups are represented here, most are clumped together in reasonably small, isolated areas. I'm certain this occurs in Canadian cities as well, but it doesn't seem to be the issue it is here. Perhaps there are a few things on immigration we might learn from our northern neighbors.
I'm certain Canada has its problems and drawbacks, but from what little I've seen of it, it's a great country to visit and maybe a nice place to live.
Where Are They Now?
Occasionally, a television program will check in with a former, high-profile person, who has either fallen from public view, or has regained media attention for a different reason. Perhaps it is a former professional athlete, who is working a regular job, or a movie star dealing with drug addiction. Who can forget former/current lead singer from Van Halen, working as an EMT? These are considered human interest stories and they help to illustrate how fragile position is, once you rise to the top.
These type of stories happen all around us, every day, but never make the news. But that's not what I want to write about today. Today, I want to write about inconsistency, something we all exhibit at times, often without realizing it.
I tend to be somewhat obsessive. If I believe in something, I believe in it all the way, until I'm given ample evidence my belief is mistaken. As an example, I believe in being nice to people, regardless of my mood, or how they treat me. Although it is difficult at times, I make an effort to restrain my urges, smile and walk away.
When someone is inconsistent in their beliefs or actions, I feel the need to point it out. This is why I make a habit of pointing out people, who have declared acceptance of a particular religion, when they commit acts inconsistent with their expressed beliefs. Therein lies my own inconsistency; I enjoy doing something that can hardly be considered "being nice". I'm not perfect, just shaved, or at least my neck is.
Just a few weeks ago, before captured Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had arrived at the hospital to be treated for his wounds, Republican lawmakers were urging this U.S. citizen be declared as an enemy combatant. Amongst the early demands were those from Senators Graham (R-SC), McCain (R-AZ), Ayotte (R-NH) and Representative King (R-NY). Others jumped on this bandwagon, which was halted quickly by President Obama's announcement that the suspect would not be declared an enemy combatant. In the following days, others came out criticizing this decision, including Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN).
Now we see reports that the FBI has thwarted a potential terrorist attack in Minnesota, by a convicted felon, also a U.S. citizen. This potential terrorist was allegedly in possession of pipe bombs, other explosive devices and firearms, including a Romanian AKM assault rifle. Currently, this man is being held for the crime of a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, while the investigation is underway. Here is a link to a detailed story, since today this story has disappeared from the news: Montevideo man's terror attack against police foiled, FBI says.
The question I need to ask is where are all those Republican demands today? Why have there been no calls for this man to be treated as an enemy combatant? Why has no member of Congress stated "extreme interrogation techniques" should be used to determine the extent of this conspiracy? Where is Rep. Bachmann on this, a potential attack that threatened her home state and the people she is being paid to represent? Where are the demands this person's rights need to be ignored in the interest of fighting terrorism?
Are there degrees to terrorism? Is an attack that kills and injures innocent bystanders somehow worse depending on the nationality, race or religion of the terrorist? Is a deluded, white supremacist felon somehow a better person than an educated Muslim extremist? And the question that will never be asked: How is it possible for a convicted felon to come into possession of multiple firearms?
If you're an elected official, try to be consistent. Either demand Buford Rogers be given enemy combatant status, or admit that your reactions were simply an expression of your belief in the rightness of racism.
These type of stories happen all around us, every day, but never make the news. But that's not what I want to write about today. Today, I want to write about inconsistency, something we all exhibit at times, often without realizing it.
I tend to be somewhat obsessive. If I believe in something, I believe in it all the way, until I'm given ample evidence my belief is mistaken. As an example, I believe in being nice to people, regardless of my mood, or how they treat me. Although it is difficult at times, I make an effort to restrain my urges, smile and walk away.
When someone is inconsistent in their beliefs or actions, I feel the need to point it out. This is why I make a habit of pointing out people, who have declared acceptance of a particular religion, when they commit acts inconsistent with their expressed beliefs. Therein lies my own inconsistency; I enjoy doing something that can hardly be considered "being nice". I'm not perfect, just shaved, or at least my neck is.
Just a few weeks ago, before captured Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had arrived at the hospital to be treated for his wounds, Republican lawmakers were urging this U.S. citizen be declared as an enemy combatant. Amongst the early demands were those from Senators Graham (R-SC), McCain (R-AZ), Ayotte (R-NH) and Representative King (R-NY). Others jumped on this bandwagon, which was halted quickly by President Obama's announcement that the suspect would not be declared an enemy combatant. In the following days, others came out criticizing this decision, including Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN).
Now we see reports that the FBI has thwarted a potential terrorist attack in Minnesota, by a convicted felon, also a U.S. citizen. This potential terrorist was allegedly in possession of pipe bombs, other explosive devices and firearms, including a Romanian AKM assault rifle. Currently, this man is being held for the crime of a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, while the investigation is underway. Here is a link to a detailed story, since today this story has disappeared from the news: Montevideo man's terror attack against police foiled, FBI says.
The question I need to ask is where are all those Republican demands today? Why have there been no calls for this man to be treated as an enemy combatant? Why has no member of Congress stated "extreme interrogation techniques" should be used to determine the extent of this conspiracy? Where is Rep. Bachmann on this, a potential attack that threatened her home state and the people she is being paid to represent? Where are the demands this person's rights need to be ignored in the interest of fighting terrorism?
Are there degrees to terrorism? Is an attack that kills and injures innocent bystanders somehow worse depending on the nationality, race or religion of the terrorist? Is a deluded, white supremacist felon somehow a better person than an educated Muslim extremist? And the question that will never be asked: How is it possible for a convicted felon to come into possession of multiple firearms?
If you're an elected official, try to be consistent. Either demand Buford Rogers be given enemy combatant status, or admit that your reactions were simply an expression of your belief in the rightness of racism.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Living in a Fantasy World
I've often mentioned my love of reading, although I'm uncertain where or why I developed that love. Growing up, our house contained very few books outside of the ones we bought at school book fairs. My favorite aunt (technically great aunt) did have several bookcases full of books, so perhaps I acquired this love from her.
My reading has covered the spectrum. From westerns to romance novels, suspense, science fiction to biographies, histories and mysteries, I've enjoyed many books that I never thought I would be interested in. One genre which I've explored extensively is fantasy, fantasy of the J.R.R. Tolkien variety, not the Penthouse Forum variety. Fantasy seldom gets a great deal of respect, and I believe this bias to be unfair. Perhaps you will agree.
All works of fiction, and many non-fiction works are fantasy. They are either based upon events that never happened, or circumstances that never existed, or they are narrow interpretations or opinions that do not take into account contrary beliefs. Even our own lives contain a great deal of fantasy. When we tell our stories, we adjust the events to portray the characters as we want them to be perceived (guilty as charged). We make ourselves look better, and our enemies look worse. We highlight the humor or tragedy to get a better response, and somewhere along the way, the improved version replaces reality in our mind.
Writing a novel is a difficult proposition. Besides developing characters and plot, the author has to maintain consistency. A hero with a debilitating fear of heights does not tightrope walk his way out of an impossible situation. For most works of fiction, the characters are the main concern when it comes to consistency, since the events are taking place in a world we can see. Fantasy, however, takes place in a different type of world, with different plants, animals, and peoples. Even the sky is different, yet certain physical laws remain. Well written fantasy has to pay close attention to all of these details and still tell an engaging story. Much more difficult than making minor alterations to real events.
Probably the best known works of fantasy are the books of J.R.R. Tolkien; "The Hobbit" and the trilogy "The Lord of the Rings". These books, written between 1937 and 1949 (the trilogy was published in 1954 and 1955), have been extremely successful, and their popularity continues to grow. The reason is simple, they are well written and consistent books that tell an engaging story. These books have also become a template for fantasy novels. First, create an ultimate evil, preferably of god-like proportions. Now all you need is an unlikely hero and several contradictory companions. "The Belgariad" by David Eddings, "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" by Stephen R. Donaldson and "Shannara" by Terry Brooks are excellent examples of this formula.
Not all works of fantasy are epic adventures, as with all other literature, they run the gamut from romance to mystery. For a quick read when you really need a good laugh, I recommend any of the Discworld books by Terry Pratchett. They are laugh out loud funny and also give some interesting insights into our own world.
This piece came about because of something I wrote not long ago. While writing that piece I recalled a short story that I wanted to tie in, but after finding and reading the story, it ended up not making the cut. The story "Love is an Imaginary Number" by Roger Zelazny, has ties to Greek and Norse mythology and also appears to be the inspiration for the author's most famous work. The text is available online, take a few minutes and give it a quick read.
It seems ridiculous to put an encouragement to read at the end of this, but here it is. Visit your local bookstore, find the discount table and grab a book at random, visit the library and ask a librarian the title of their favorite book, or ask for a recommendation from one of your weird friends (we all either have them or are them). Every book is a fantasy, but every fantasy contains truth and knowledge. The more your read (unless you confine your reading to a very narrow subject), the more you learn.
Besides, if you've managed to make it through this, you can make it through just about anything.
My reading has covered the spectrum. From westerns to romance novels, suspense, science fiction to biographies, histories and mysteries, I've enjoyed many books that I never thought I would be interested in. One genre which I've explored extensively is fantasy, fantasy of the J.R.R. Tolkien variety, not the Penthouse Forum variety. Fantasy seldom gets a great deal of respect, and I believe this bias to be unfair. Perhaps you will agree.
All works of fiction, and many non-fiction works are fantasy. They are either based upon events that never happened, or circumstances that never existed, or they are narrow interpretations or opinions that do not take into account contrary beliefs. Even our own lives contain a great deal of fantasy. When we tell our stories, we adjust the events to portray the characters as we want them to be perceived (guilty as charged). We make ourselves look better, and our enemies look worse. We highlight the humor or tragedy to get a better response, and somewhere along the way, the improved version replaces reality in our mind.
Writing a novel is a difficult proposition. Besides developing characters and plot, the author has to maintain consistency. A hero with a debilitating fear of heights does not tightrope walk his way out of an impossible situation. For most works of fiction, the characters are the main concern when it comes to consistency, since the events are taking place in a world we can see. Fantasy, however, takes place in a different type of world, with different plants, animals, and peoples. Even the sky is different, yet certain physical laws remain. Well written fantasy has to pay close attention to all of these details and still tell an engaging story. Much more difficult than making minor alterations to real events.
Probably the best known works of fantasy are the books of J.R.R. Tolkien; "The Hobbit" and the trilogy "The Lord of the Rings". These books, written between 1937 and 1949 (the trilogy was published in 1954 and 1955), have been extremely successful, and their popularity continues to grow. The reason is simple, they are well written and consistent books that tell an engaging story. These books have also become a template for fantasy novels. First, create an ultimate evil, preferably of god-like proportions. Now all you need is an unlikely hero and several contradictory companions. "The Belgariad" by David Eddings, "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" by Stephen R. Donaldson and "Shannara" by Terry Brooks are excellent examples of this formula.
Not all works of fantasy are epic adventures, as with all other literature, they run the gamut from romance to mystery. For a quick read when you really need a good laugh, I recommend any of the Discworld books by Terry Pratchett. They are laugh out loud funny and also give some interesting insights into our own world.
This piece came about because of something I wrote not long ago. While writing that piece I recalled a short story that I wanted to tie in, but after finding and reading the story, it ended up not making the cut. The story "Love is an Imaginary Number" by Roger Zelazny, has ties to Greek and Norse mythology and also appears to be the inspiration for the author's most famous work. The text is available online, take a few minutes and give it a quick read.
It seems ridiculous to put an encouragement to read at the end of this, but here it is. Visit your local bookstore, find the discount table and grab a book at random, visit the library and ask a librarian the title of their favorite book, or ask for a recommendation from one of your weird friends (we all either have them or are them). Every book is a fantasy, but every fantasy contains truth and knowledge. The more your read (unless you confine your reading to a very narrow subject), the more you learn.
Besides, if you've managed to make it through this, you can make it through just about anything.
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Sky Really Is Falling
I came home from work with several things that I wanted to write about, and discovered something that made me throw everything out. Something has come to my attention much too important, too vital to our very existence to put off. The details are very complex, so bear with me while I give you the information in the proper order.
As many of you are already aware, the government has long been plotting against us. The goal is simple, to take all power and rights away from us and enslave us. The most recent plot is for President Obama to declare martial law in 2016, cancel all elections and turn our country into the leader in a Muslim takeover of the world. Due to the selfless, patriotic actions of the NRA, the first step in this diabolical plot has been thwarted. They thought we would fall for "background checks", but we all knew, that was just a clever way of saying "take everyone's guns away and cancel the Second Amendment". Thank you NRA for thinking first and foremost about our safety and our freedom.
However, the government was not relying solely on disarming the public to achieve their nefarious ends, they have a contingency plan. For several years now, the government has been spraying chemicals into the upper atmosphere, and there has been much speculation about the purpose. Certainly, it can be for no good, but what is the specific threat? To understand the reason, I must tell you a story.
In 1980 I joined the Navy and went off to boot camp at Great Lakes, Illinois. I ended up with the bunk under a young man I will call Joe. Joe had graduated from a gifted program and had completed 3 years of college before dropping out at age 17. Troubles at home led him to join the Navy. We became fast friends, partially because we had a shared interest in organic chemistry and breasts.
Halfway through boot camp, I woke up to find Joe gone. We were told that Joe had failed a drug test and had been kicked out of the Navy, but I always wondered about that, for one reason, because we had not been drug tested and because Joe was squeakier than Mr. Clean's rectum. In recent years I've tried to track Joe down, using all the resources of the internet and there is no record of his existence. It's as if he disappeared from the face of the earth.
Today, I arrived home to find a package, thinking it to be another result of my addiction to online shopping, I opened it. What I found inside is impossible to believe, but I must believe it, we all must believe it, if we hope to survive.
Have you heard of bimetallic materials? Take two thin pieces of metal with different rates of expansion, combine them and you have a material which bends in response to changes in temperature. Most thermostats use this principle. As the temperature rises, the metal straightens and turns on the air conditioning, as the temperature falls, it curls tighter and turns on the heater. During his time at college, Joe had worked on a research project to use the bimetallic principle as a method of thought control. Since thought and nerve impulses are electrical in nature and memory is based upon magnetic principles, by infecting the brain with bimetallic particles, thoughts might be twisted and minds bent to believe anything. Even memory could be corrupted, with real memories being replaced by false ones. For the past 33 years, Joe has been locked away in a secret government lab, perfecting this process.
Recently, Joe discovered how President Obama planned to first kill everyone who knew of the project, and then use the results to force all Americans to bow down to him as Emperor. Knowing his life was already forfeit, Joe sought a way to warn the world and chose me as someone the government would not think to connect to him.
Remember the chemicals in the upper atmosphere? Those are bimetallic particles that collect in the clouds, rain down and contaminate our entire water supply. Due to the magnetic nature of the brain, the particles collect there, and once the concentration is high enough, we are subject to thought control. Why do you think they keep telling us to drink more water?
The time is short and we must act now, or become an army of mindless zombies, blindly believing in things which make no sense, blindly following along to hasten our own destruction. Fortunately, Joe discovered a way to remove the particles so we can once again be free from the threat of mind control. The first step, of course, is to stop drinking any type of liquid that has not been specially treated to remove or neutralize the particles. To treat your liquids you will need to first filter them to remove most of the contaminants. Next, take the filtered liquid and put it in a non-magnetic metal pot, I recommend aluminum. You will also need a large permanent magnet to put in the pot. Place the pot in your microwave and turn it on for 3 minutes per quart. Once the microwave explodes, the liquid is safe to drink after you filter it once again.
Now that you know how to prevent re-infection, all that is left is to use the antidote to remove the particles already in your brain. The solution is quite simple, but must be taken twice per day for 10 days. Take 12 ounces of your own urine, cool to room temperature and then dissolve in it one Hostess Twinkie... Damnit! They're on to us.
As many of you are already aware, the government has long been plotting against us. The goal is simple, to take all power and rights away from us and enslave us. The most recent plot is for President Obama to declare martial law in 2016, cancel all elections and turn our country into the leader in a Muslim takeover of the world. Due to the selfless, patriotic actions of the NRA, the first step in this diabolical plot has been thwarted. They thought we would fall for "background checks", but we all knew, that was just a clever way of saying "take everyone's guns away and cancel the Second Amendment". Thank you NRA for thinking first and foremost about our safety and our freedom.
However, the government was not relying solely on disarming the public to achieve their nefarious ends, they have a contingency plan. For several years now, the government has been spraying chemicals into the upper atmosphere, and there has been much speculation about the purpose. Certainly, it can be for no good, but what is the specific threat? To understand the reason, I must tell you a story.
In 1980 I joined the Navy and went off to boot camp at Great Lakes, Illinois. I ended up with the bunk under a young man I will call Joe. Joe had graduated from a gifted program and had completed 3 years of college before dropping out at age 17. Troubles at home led him to join the Navy. We became fast friends, partially because we had a shared interest in organic chemistry and breasts.
Halfway through boot camp, I woke up to find Joe gone. We were told that Joe had failed a drug test and had been kicked out of the Navy, but I always wondered about that, for one reason, because we had not been drug tested and because Joe was squeakier than Mr. Clean's rectum. In recent years I've tried to track Joe down, using all the resources of the internet and there is no record of his existence. It's as if he disappeared from the face of the earth.
Today, I arrived home to find a package, thinking it to be another result of my addiction to online shopping, I opened it. What I found inside is impossible to believe, but I must believe it, we all must believe it, if we hope to survive.
Have you heard of bimetallic materials? Take two thin pieces of metal with different rates of expansion, combine them and you have a material which bends in response to changes in temperature. Most thermostats use this principle. As the temperature rises, the metal straightens and turns on the air conditioning, as the temperature falls, it curls tighter and turns on the heater. During his time at college, Joe had worked on a research project to use the bimetallic principle as a method of thought control. Since thought and nerve impulses are electrical in nature and memory is based upon magnetic principles, by infecting the brain with bimetallic particles, thoughts might be twisted and minds bent to believe anything. Even memory could be corrupted, with real memories being replaced by false ones. For the past 33 years, Joe has been locked away in a secret government lab, perfecting this process.
Recently, Joe discovered how President Obama planned to first kill everyone who knew of the project, and then use the results to force all Americans to bow down to him as Emperor. Knowing his life was already forfeit, Joe sought a way to warn the world and chose me as someone the government would not think to connect to him.
Remember the chemicals in the upper atmosphere? Those are bimetallic particles that collect in the clouds, rain down and contaminate our entire water supply. Due to the magnetic nature of the brain, the particles collect there, and once the concentration is high enough, we are subject to thought control. Why do you think they keep telling us to drink more water?
The time is short and we must act now, or become an army of mindless zombies, blindly believing in things which make no sense, blindly following along to hasten our own destruction. Fortunately, Joe discovered a way to remove the particles so we can once again be free from the threat of mind control. The first step, of course, is to stop drinking any type of liquid that has not been specially treated to remove or neutralize the particles. To treat your liquids you will need to first filter them to remove most of the contaminants. Next, take the filtered liquid and put it in a non-magnetic metal pot, I recommend aluminum. You will also need a large permanent magnet to put in the pot. Place the pot in your microwave and turn it on for 3 minutes per quart. Once the microwave explodes, the liquid is safe to drink after you filter it once again.
Now that you know how to prevent re-infection, all that is left is to use the antidote to remove the particles already in your brain. The solution is quite simple, but must be taken twice per day for 10 days. Take 12 ounces of your own urine, cool to room temperature and then dissolve in it one Hostess Twinkie... Damnit! They're on to us.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
We Are Family
Most of my writing efforts are externally motivated and based upon issues or events which only peripherally affect me. Whether it is gay marriage, legalizing marijuana or gun control, these things are not personal issues. I'm not hoping Prop. 8 gets settled in California so I can move there, marry the man I love and get stoned, without having to first go to Massachusetts to get married. The things I spend my time on are other people's problems. When it comes down to it, I have no reason to care,. Today, I've decided to write about something personal and painful, something that may very well offend and alienate the people I most want to reach, if they actually read it.
Every person goes through life alone. Certainly we share our lives with many people, and if we are fortunate, at some point we find the one person who will share the rest of our lives. However, there is still some little part of us held in reserve. It may be nothing more than a buried memory, or an embarrassing event from the distant past, or it may be something important that we just can't bring to share. These tiny hidden nuggets of truth are what keep us separate and help maintain our sense of self. At the same time, they keep us from fully experiencing the joining together into something greater than the sum of its parts.
Have you ever noticed how, after long relationships, people seem to grow more alike? This even happens with pets. The pets seem to take on a few facial characteristics of their owners and even some of their personality. This is caused by a closeness that transcends simple physical contact. For the religious you may look it as a joining of souls. Others might think of it as enhancing your chi with that of another or of a combining of auras. However you may view it, this joining is potentially the most powerful force in the universe. It is the source of miracles and has the power to not only move mountains, but to move the world. To give it a name, it is love.
For all of my life I've understood that love comes in many forms, there is the love of family and the love of friends, the love of children and the love of a partner. All sharing some similarities, but all different. For some time now, I've been wondering about this. Are they all different? My belief is that love simply is, it has no variations, no flavors and no degrees. These are all artificial constraints we are taught to surround ourselves with, to keep us apart.
I've often been told there is no love to compare with the love of a mother for her child and the deBeers people would like us to believe there is no love to compare with the love that somehow needs you to spend 3 years salary on a tiny rock to symbolize your love. Certainly, we all know the importance of family love, after all, blood is thicker than water. Just for the record, so is tar, but water is a much better thirst quencher and doesn't stain (hard water stains are caused by impurities in the water such as iron and calcium, not the water itself, smartass).
If closeness and love bring people together, and make them more alike, the love of family should be the strongest of them all. From an early age we sleep, bathe, eat, play and grow together. This should form bonds of love which are unbreakable, but it doesn't. We are taught that we have to love our brothers and sisters. Forget the bloody noses, the scratches and bruises, forget the emotional torture and all the tears, they are family and everyone loves everyone or else. Now this may not describe your family, but it does describe mine. Perhaps you and your siblings overcame the bickering and fighting and developed that bond which keeps you together. I know many families that have, and I can tell you, those families make the best friends, because when you love one of them, then you join in the love of the entire family.
Sadly, not all families are this way. My own family is an excellent example. Don't get me wrong, we all love each other, we have to, we're family. But, it's not a love that is based upon a mutual respect and drawing closer through shared experiences, it's love at arms length, it's let's agree to disagree love, or I'll help you if you really need it, but I'd rather you asked someone else love. Ultimately, it's a love of echoes, rather than something to embrace, it is something just out of reach.
Inside, I've always been an extremely emotional person, but I rarely show that to the world. I laugh and I smile and I make jokes. I tell stories and occasionally, go on rants about whatever I may feel is important at the time, but the pain and the tears, and the love I keep caged, locked away with the anger and the fear, only occasionally letting one of them stick its head between the bars so someone can pet it or coo over it. In the past, the love ran free, but that always brought out the tears and the pain, and also the anger and fear, so I locked it away. Except for family, I kept the love inside, because I knew family could be trusted.
For 22 years I was separated from family, often by a thousand miles or more. Our contact was extremely limited, a rare phone call, a card for Christmas and my birthday and even rarer visits when I returned to Indiana. Those 22 years contained the bulk of my adult experiences and 100,000 words would not begin to do them justice. Those years were also the years and experiences that made my brothers and sisters who they are today. Some of those experiences were shared, but mostly we each went through our true growth and development alone. The end result is that in many ways we are strangers.
Since returning to the fold, I have tried to embrace their lives and who they have become. I've become interested in their hobbies, tried to find out all I've missed and tried to share some of my experiences so they can get to know me. But, I have neither the time nor money to fully join in their lives, and now I'm 100 miles away from all (and 1000 miles away from one), I have to come to realize my efforts have been wasted. All those years apart have formed a gulf that will always keep us apart.
The love is still there and I still respect those things about them that are worthy of respect, but now the love is for the individual, based not upon a relationship but upon the person. I no longer expect any favoritism from anyone simply because of a genetic connection. If any of them happen to be passing through, I no longer expect a phone call, not that I've gotten very many calls in the past. Maybe we'll get together on the holidays.
To my family, I'm proud of each of you for your abilities and accomplishments. Shannon, I often brag about your cooking and all the incredible things you make and have made and I'm amazed at all that you've been through to get to where you are. Dennis, you've built a successful company and raised an amazing family all by working harder than anyone should. I show off pictures and videos of your racing and am proud to say "that's my brother". Colleen, you chose a path in life that took you to hell, yet somehow you made it through and have come out a much better person than I ever thought you capable of being. While I will never share your beliefs, I am proud of how you've found happiness and learned to truly love. Bill, you have had it harder than all of us combined. I know only a fraction of what you have been through and just having survived it all is something to be proud of. At times you have vexed all of us, but I know that you've always just wanted to love and be loved in return. Know now that you are loved and that I'm proud of how you are always willing to give anything and everything to help those in need.
For all my nieces and nephews, I don't know any of you as well as I would like to. I haven't been there to see the skinned knees and the trophies, the tears or the laughs. If I can give any advice to you, it is to let go of the pain and to love everyone you can. If you can, learn to love people, not because of who they are, or what they do, or even how they make you feel, love them simply because they exist. You may not like what they do, who they are, or how they make you feel, but if you can, accept that for all their faults and wrongs, they need love as much as you do.
I'm opinionated, strong-willed and stubborn. I make inappropriate jokes and often what I have to say goes against everything you have been taught or come to believe in. I don't expect you to throw away your beliefs and worship what I say, I have at least as much right to be wrong as the next person. All I'm asking is that you take a look at my words, without any prejudice. Examine my thoughts, give them at least as much consideration as you would the menu at your favorite restaurant. You might end up ordering the same thing you always do, but perhaps you'll find something else that you might like to try someday. If nothing was accomplished, at least for a few minutes, you were thinking and not just reacting. Who knows, maybe someday more of you will tell someone "You should read this. My brother/uncle/friend wrote it. I'm really proud of him".
If you are reading this, know that I love you. Whether you are family, friend or complete stranger, I love you. I love you not because we are alike or different, not because we compliment or contradict, but because you and I are worth loving. By loving you, I hope you can come to love me and together we can love everyone, and everyone can love us, and together we can change the world.
"I'd like to teach the world to sing..."
Every person goes through life alone. Certainly we share our lives with many people, and if we are fortunate, at some point we find the one person who will share the rest of our lives. However, there is still some little part of us held in reserve. It may be nothing more than a buried memory, or an embarrassing event from the distant past, or it may be something important that we just can't bring to share. These tiny hidden nuggets of truth are what keep us separate and help maintain our sense of self. At the same time, they keep us from fully experiencing the joining together into something greater than the sum of its parts.
Have you ever noticed how, after long relationships, people seem to grow more alike? This even happens with pets. The pets seem to take on a few facial characteristics of their owners and even some of their personality. This is caused by a closeness that transcends simple physical contact. For the religious you may look it as a joining of souls. Others might think of it as enhancing your chi with that of another or of a combining of auras. However you may view it, this joining is potentially the most powerful force in the universe. It is the source of miracles and has the power to not only move mountains, but to move the world. To give it a name, it is love.
For all of my life I've understood that love comes in many forms, there is the love of family and the love of friends, the love of children and the love of a partner. All sharing some similarities, but all different. For some time now, I've been wondering about this. Are they all different? My belief is that love simply is, it has no variations, no flavors and no degrees. These are all artificial constraints we are taught to surround ourselves with, to keep us apart.
I've often been told there is no love to compare with the love of a mother for her child and the deBeers people would like us to believe there is no love to compare with the love that somehow needs you to spend 3 years salary on a tiny rock to symbolize your love. Certainly, we all know the importance of family love, after all, blood is thicker than water. Just for the record, so is tar, but water is a much better thirst quencher and doesn't stain (hard water stains are caused by impurities in the water such as iron and calcium, not the water itself, smartass).
If closeness and love bring people together, and make them more alike, the love of family should be the strongest of them all. From an early age we sleep, bathe, eat, play and grow together. This should form bonds of love which are unbreakable, but it doesn't. We are taught that we have to love our brothers and sisters. Forget the bloody noses, the scratches and bruises, forget the emotional torture and all the tears, they are family and everyone loves everyone or else. Now this may not describe your family, but it does describe mine. Perhaps you and your siblings overcame the bickering and fighting and developed that bond which keeps you together. I know many families that have, and I can tell you, those families make the best friends, because when you love one of them, then you join in the love of the entire family.
Sadly, not all families are this way. My own family is an excellent example. Don't get me wrong, we all love each other, we have to, we're family. But, it's not a love that is based upon a mutual respect and drawing closer through shared experiences, it's love at arms length, it's let's agree to disagree love, or I'll help you if you really need it, but I'd rather you asked someone else love. Ultimately, it's a love of echoes, rather than something to embrace, it is something just out of reach.
Inside, I've always been an extremely emotional person, but I rarely show that to the world. I laugh and I smile and I make jokes. I tell stories and occasionally, go on rants about whatever I may feel is important at the time, but the pain and the tears, and the love I keep caged, locked away with the anger and the fear, only occasionally letting one of them stick its head between the bars so someone can pet it or coo over it. In the past, the love ran free, but that always brought out the tears and the pain, and also the anger and fear, so I locked it away. Except for family, I kept the love inside, because I knew family could be trusted.
For 22 years I was separated from family, often by a thousand miles or more. Our contact was extremely limited, a rare phone call, a card for Christmas and my birthday and even rarer visits when I returned to Indiana. Those 22 years contained the bulk of my adult experiences and 100,000 words would not begin to do them justice. Those years were also the years and experiences that made my brothers and sisters who they are today. Some of those experiences were shared, but mostly we each went through our true growth and development alone. The end result is that in many ways we are strangers.
Since returning to the fold, I have tried to embrace their lives and who they have become. I've become interested in their hobbies, tried to find out all I've missed and tried to share some of my experiences so they can get to know me. But, I have neither the time nor money to fully join in their lives, and now I'm 100 miles away from all (and 1000 miles away from one), I have to come to realize my efforts have been wasted. All those years apart have formed a gulf that will always keep us apart.
The love is still there and I still respect those things about them that are worthy of respect, but now the love is for the individual, based not upon a relationship but upon the person. I no longer expect any favoritism from anyone simply because of a genetic connection. If any of them happen to be passing through, I no longer expect a phone call, not that I've gotten very many calls in the past. Maybe we'll get together on the holidays.
To my family, I'm proud of each of you for your abilities and accomplishments. Shannon, I often brag about your cooking and all the incredible things you make and have made and I'm amazed at all that you've been through to get to where you are. Dennis, you've built a successful company and raised an amazing family all by working harder than anyone should. I show off pictures and videos of your racing and am proud to say "that's my brother". Colleen, you chose a path in life that took you to hell, yet somehow you made it through and have come out a much better person than I ever thought you capable of being. While I will never share your beliefs, I am proud of how you've found happiness and learned to truly love. Bill, you have had it harder than all of us combined. I know only a fraction of what you have been through and just having survived it all is something to be proud of. At times you have vexed all of us, but I know that you've always just wanted to love and be loved in return. Know now that you are loved and that I'm proud of how you are always willing to give anything and everything to help those in need.
For all my nieces and nephews, I don't know any of you as well as I would like to. I haven't been there to see the skinned knees and the trophies, the tears or the laughs. If I can give any advice to you, it is to let go of the pain and to love everyone you can. If you can, learn to love people, not because of who they are, or what they do, or even how they make you feel, love them simply because they exist. You may not like what they do, who they are, or how they make you feel, but if you can, accept that for all their faults and wrongs, they need love as much as you do.
I'm opinionated, strong-willed and stubborn. I make inappropriate jokes and often what I have to say goes against everything you have been taught or come to believe in. I don't expect you to throw away your beliefs and worship what I say, I have at least as much right to be wrong as the next person. All I'm asking is that you take a look at my words, without any prejudice. Examine my thoughts, give them at least as much consideration as you would the menu at your favorite restaurant. You might end up ordering the same thing you always do, but perhaps you'll find something else that you might like to try someday. If nothing was accomplished, at least for a few minutes, you were thinking and not just reacting. Who knows, maybe someday more of you will tell someone "You should read this. My brother/uncle/friend wrote it. I'm really proud of him".
If you are reading this, know that I love you. Whether you are family, friend or complete stranger, I love you. I love you not because we are alike or different, not because we compliment or contradict, but because you and I are worth loving. By loving you, I hope you can come to love me and together we can love everyone, and everyone can love us, and together we can change the world.
"I'd like to teach the world to sing..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)