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.
Monday, April 29, 2013
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..."
Monday, April 22, 2013
Who Has Gay Friends?
Occasionally I'll hear someone discussing homosexuality and something along the lines of "I have lots of gay friends, but..." will enter the conversation. At one time, I also had lots of gay friends, but no longer. That's correct, I just said it. I no longer have any gay friends. Does this bother you on some level? Do you feel that perhaps I'm being too harsh? Why not have gay friends? Everyone has gay friends.
Over the years I have had friends from every walk of life. Drug dealers, doctors, pornstars, preachers, millionaires and migrant workers have all been my friends. I've had friends from all over the United States and all over the world, friends from every culture and religion, friends from every classification you can imagine and some friends who defy any classification. The only thing that binds them all together is they were my friends.
Let's talk about some of the specific friends. Melissa was a young woman in San Diego, married to an abusive husband. She had an interesting story. At the age of 12, her mother sold her off to be a sex slave. The couple that bought her started selling her services at age 13 and continued to do so until she ran away at 17. This didn't happen in some remote country, it happened right here in the United States. She was 23 the last I talked to her, living in Kansas and still trying to get out of her abusive relationship.
Oscar was an artist in San Diego. He had enjoyed a successful career and had traveled extensively. He lived a mostly quiet life, spending most of his time with a small circle of friends. I was honored to be invited to an art show he put on at his house for his friends. There were perhaps 50 people in attendance and Oscar was deeply touched by everyone's attendance. He took his own life two weeks later, before AIDS made him too sick to enjoy life. The art show was the last item on his bucket list, because it was most important to him. The other two items were a champagne hot air balloon flight and a gondola ride through the canals of Venice.
Deb was a big girl. Originally from Oklahoma, she had moved to New Mexico. After serving an enlistment in the Army, she traveled around seeing the country and trying to decide what to do with the rest of her life. Her car broke down in Albuquerque and by the time she could afford to fix it, Albuquerque had become home. When I say big, I'm not trying to dance around calling her a BBW, or Curvy, or even Thick. She stood about 6'2" and was a very solid 280#. Put her in a uniform and she would have fit in quite well with the offensive line of any NFL team. I ended up being the photographer for her wedding. She looked great in a tuxedo and Lenore had a beautiful white wedding dress.
Sid was a former VP at Sony. He grew up in Brooklyn and got his first real sales job at the age of 16. He never graduated high school and never attended college. He worked his way from the bottom to very near the top. He had great stories about extended trips to Japan and to the USSR. We met when I moved him from Oakland to Las Vegas, where he promptly adopted me. Several months later we got together in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida where he invited me to join him, his wife, his daughter and her family for dinner at Buca di Beppo. The next day Sid, his wife and I took a road trip down to Marathon where he treated me to lunch and more stories from his amazing life. He died from a brain embolism three months later.
David was an online friend in San Diego for over three years before I was invited to visit him, along with four others, at his apartment. There had been a flood of rumors about David. He was gay. He was in a wheelchair. He was in the Witness Protection Program, etc. He was very intelligent and was an excellent writer. He wrote an incredible first hand account of the Chicago Riots at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. He got caught up in the confusion and ended up beaten and jailed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. David suffered from severe agoraphobia. He was terrified of going outside or being around strangers.
These stories aren't meant to be sad and they aren't intended to impress. They are an attempt to show that friends are who they are. I don't think of my friends by the category they fall into. I don't have short friends and bald friends and black friends. I have friends. When talking about me do any of my friends say "he's one of my tall friends" or "he's one of my story telling friends"? Can't I at least be a cute guy friend? No? Damn.
In our minds, we don't classify our friends. When deciding how to spend a day we don't say "Hmmm, do I want to go out with some gay friends or some straight friends?". If we don't label our friends in our thoughts, why do it in our speech? Having gay friends does not give any special insight in what it means to be gay, just as having tall friends doesn't make it easier for you to reach the top shelf. If we can learn to stop labeling our friends in our speech, then perhaps we can start seeing all people as just people. Each is an individual and each should be judged as an individual.
Let's stop worrying about what people are and try to learn who they are.
Over the years I have had friends from every walk of life. Drug dealers, doctors, pornstars, preachers, millionaires and migrant workers have all been my friends. I've had friends from all over the United States and all over the world, friends from every culture and religion, friends from every classification you can imagine and some friends who defy any classification. The only thing that binds them all together is they were my friends.
Let's talk about some of the specific friends. Melissa was a young woman in San Diego, married to an abusive husband. She had an interesting story. At the age of 12, her mother sold her off to be a sex slave. The couple that bought her started selling her services at age 13 and continued to do so until she ran away at 17. This didn't happen in some remote country, it happened right here in the United States. She was 23 the last I talked to her, living in Kansas and still trying to get out of her abusive relationship.
Oscar was an artist in San Diego. He had enjoyed a successful career and had traveled extensively. He lived a mostly quiet life, spending most of his time with a small circle of friends. I was honored to be invited to an art show he put on at his house for his friends. There were perhaps 50 people in attendance and Oscar was deeply touched by everyone's attendance. He took his own life two weeks later, before AIDS made him too sick to enjoy life. The art show was the last item on his bucket list, because it was most important to him. The other two items were a champagne hot air balloon flight and a gondola ride through the canals of Venice.
Deb was a big girl. Originally from Oklahoma, she had moved to New Mexico. After serving an enlistment in the Army, she traveled around seeing the country and trying to decide what to do with the rest of her life. Her car broke down in Albuquerque and by the time she could afford to fix it, Albuquerque had become home. When I say big, I'm not trying to dance around calling her a BBW, or Curvy, or even Thick. She stood about 6'2" and was a very solid 280#. Put her in a uniform and she would have fit in quite well with the offensive line of any NFL team. I ended up being the photographer for her wedding. She looked great in a tuxedo and Lenore had a beautiful white wedding dress.
Sid was a former VP at Sony. He grew up in Brooklyn and got his first real sales job at the age of 16. He never graduated high school and never attended college. He worked his way from the bottom to very near the top. He had great stories about extended trips to Japan and to the USSR. We met when I moved him from Oakland to Las Vegas, where he promptly adopted me. Several months later we got together in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida where he invited me to join him, his wife, his daughter and her family for dinner at Buca di Beppo. The next day Sid, his wife and I took a road trip down to Marathon where he treated me to lunch and more stories from his amazing life. He died from a brain embolism three months later.
David was an online friend in San Diego for over three years before I was invited to visit him, along with four others, at his apartment. There had been a flood of rumors about David. He was gay. He was in a wheelchair. He was in the Witness Protection Program, etc. He was very intelligent and was an excellent writer. He wrote an incredible first hand account of the Chicago Riots at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. He got caught up in the confusion and ended up beaten and jailed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. David suffered from severe agoraphobia. He was terrified of going outside or being around strangers.
These stories aren't meant to be sad and they aren't intended to impress. They are an attempt to show that friends are who they are. I don't think of my friends by the category they fall into. I don't have short friends and bald friends and black friends. I have friends. When talking about me do any of my friends say "he's one of my tall friends" or "he's one of my story telling friends"? Can't I at least be a cute guy friend? No? Damn.
In our minds, we don't classify our friends. When deciding how to spend a day we don't say "Hmmm, do I want to go out with some gay friends or some straight friends?". If we don't label our friends in our thoughts, why do it in our speech? Having gay friends does not give any special insight in what it means to be gay, just as having tall friends doesn't make it easier for you to reach the top shelf. If we can learn to stop labeling our friends in our speech, then perhaps we can start seeing all people as just people. Each is an individual and each should be judged as an individual.
Let's stop worrying about what people are and try to learn who they are.
Who Do I Think I Am?
If you are reading this and feel somewhat lost, it is because I'm writing this as a continuation of a discussion, began earlier, over a picture on someone's Facebook. The picture in question shows President Obama disembarking from the Presidential helicopter about to pass between 2 of the Marine Corps honor guard, who are saluting. The president is talking on the phone and giving a halfway salute with his right hand. The text on the photo says "These men will put themselves between you and a bullet. Put down your damn cell phone and give them a proper salute, Asshole."
I pointed out that in this situation, the President is not required, and technically shouldn't return the salute and was promptly lectured on the President not showing proper respect. The conversation went downhill from there. Now that any other readers have at least an idea of what is going on, I'll return to my intended audience. Thank you for your patience.
You are absolutely correct. I do not know you at all, just as you do not know me at all. The only thing I have to go on is to gather an impression based upon your previous responses. Based on those responses, I have assumed that you personally never served in the military. That assumption is limited to you. I have no idea who you know, or which of your relatives might have served, nor is that pertinent to the discussion. Being the child, spouse or parent of a service member certainly is difficult, but it is not the same experience as what the service member goes through.
My assumption also does not mean I believe you dislike the military or that you are not a proud supporter. I previously mentioned some of the many challenges our military faces each day and you may or may not be aware of them and may or may not worry about them. I lack the information to know these things, but this is also irrelevant. During the Obama administration I have seen numerous posts about the President and about the military. The Obama posts are either positive, or they are derogatory and negative, meaning they contain insults, misrepresentations, and often, outright lies. Posts about the military generally express support for our troops, but never address any of the issues those troops are dealing with. If the posts mention President Obama they follow the same trend with insults, misrepresentations etc. Based upon the information available, I can only assume that most Americans are completely unaware of the true issues facing our troops and while they are ranting about an old picture which is a clear misrepresentation, men and women are dying. Personally, I think that is more important.
I served in the United States Navy from July 1980 through October 1988 and received an honorable discharge with an RE code 1. The RE code indicates whether someone can reenlist. A 1 means you are wanted back. I believe 4 is worst and means you will not be allowed back. I have many fond memories of my service, they were some of the best years of my life. I also saw and experienced many things which I feel would concern most Americans, if they were aware of them. These experiences were no worse than what many, if not most, service members have. I'm certain the difficulties facing those in combat are much worse than my own.
How long would most young adults last working a schedule of 36 hours on and 12 hours off? That's 36 hours, hard at work, breaking only for meals, no sleep allowed. My limit was 2 weeks, and by the end, if I walked further than about 200 feet I would fall asleep while walking. If I sat down for longer than 5 minutes I would fall asleep. Yet, I was expected to perform work, that if done incorrectly could endanger the entire ship. All of this because it made someone look better.
If you've never experienced a hurricane onboard a ship, I don't recommend it. I experienced two, and both could have been avoided. The first one resulted in minimal damage and one death, we were only in the storm for about 14 hours. The second we enjoyed for 2 1/2 days with only one serious injury and about $5 million in damages. During that time, I spent about 20 hours each day working, because a loss of propulsion would have been disastrous. We were also limited to cold cut sandwiches, since cooking when the ship is rolling up to 30° each way is impossible. So is sleeping.
Everyone in the military is familiar with Taps. It is played each night at lights out and is also played at all military funerals. Can you imagine what it feels like to take the American Flag off of the casket of one of your closest friends, fold it and hand it to his widow while Taps is playing, knowing his death was senseless? Every day someone in the military dies senselessly in a non-combat related death. How often do we hear about them?
During one incident, that I can't give much detail on, I tried everything I could to get the officer in charge to issue required orders to deal with a casualty situation. When he failed to give those orders, I followed my procedures and took the necessary steps to protect the crew. Had I not taken those steps, the result could have cost several hundred lives and caused an event which would still be remembered. I was reprimanded for my actions because it made the officer look bad.
Everyday our troops are dealing with shoddy equipment, equipment that costs us as much as 100 times the retail price of that equipment. They are working in conditions we would not subject our pets to and they are subjected to stresses and pressures most can't imagine. While this may concern you and many others I see no evidence of concern on Facebook, or elsewhere. All I see are unwarranted personal attacks on the President. When I begin to see something addressing these issues, then I'll believe people are worried about them.
You seem to have accused me of having a very narrow and limited viewpoint: "You might get off your high horse and realize that people come from all walks of life, not just your little corner of the world..." I do think highly of myself, but I don't consider myself better than anyone. I believe there are some areas where I'm better than average, and I know I fall well below average in other areas. As for my "little corner of the world", that is a fair description of my current situation. When at home I spend most of my time sitting in the corner, surrounded by by guitars, amps, recording gear and computer. I might do many things, but most of them I do from this chair.
However, this is not my whole life. During my life I've lived in 8 states, 7 since I became an adult. I've visited all 50 states, 2 U.S. Territories and 2 foreign countries. At one time I corresponded regularly with people on 5 different continents. I have met, worked with and been friends with people from all walks of life. From porn stars to preachers, top executives to manual laborers, millionaires to the homeless, my friends over the years have covered just about everything. Every religion, every ethnic group and many nationalities are represented in that group. I've also worked in a wide range of different fields. From all these people and all these experiences, I've tried to learn things.
I've sat down and learned about the history, importance and traditions of tea from an elderly Chinese man. I've sat and listened to a holocaust survivor and a Pearl Harbor survivor. I've sat face to face and listened to people who experienced the Great Depression and the jungles of Vietnam. To supplement my experiences, I've read. Since the age of 6 I've averaged somewhere between 30 and 50 books each year, and the books have covered a fairly wide range of genres and subjects. While I might now sit in a little corner of the world, my view is probably much wider than average.
Other than a few limited excursions, most people spend their entire life within 100 miles of where they grew up. Most people have significant regular contact with only a few hundred people. The average American watches more television in a week than I watch in a year. I read more in a year than the average reads in their lifetime. Because of all my experiences, I feel that my world view is somewhat broader than most, and I feel this gives me a better than average grasp of most situations.
Lastly, noticing and worrying about what the President does is good and admirable. Being aware of the government is the responsibility of everyone, and constructive criticism is important. However, name calling or spreading lies about anyone is neither good nor admirable. While you are at it, why not take a few minutes to consider some of the possible mistakes made by previous Presidents? In all fairness, if President Obama "seems to reflect the brokenness of this country in most everything he does", shouldn't his actions be compared with President Bush's actions?
Here are a few things to consider. Ten years ago we invaded Iraq over non-existent weapons, spent over a trillion dollars in a war that ended thousands of U.S. lives, and left the country worse off than it was before we liberated it. Do you feel this was appropriate? Over 11 years ago we invaded Afghanistan, the same country that caused us to boycott the 1980 Olympics in protest of the USSR invading them. Any military strategist could have, based upon the USSR's failure, told you that winning a war in Afghanistan was not possible without completely destroying the country. Add 2000 more lives and another trillion dollars to the "War on Terror". Has it been effective? Since 2001 the number and severity of terrorist attacks worldwide has increased dramatically. It could be the near absence of attacks on U.S. soil is due to the War on Terror, but it really isn't proper to take credit for things that haven't happened. Do you feel the 6500 American lives lost fighting the War on Terror somehow compensate for the 3000 lives lost in the September 11 attacks?
Also during the Bush Administration, we had an enormous financial crisis. This crisis, which was influenced by changes in banking and securities regulations, cost 6 million American jobs, resulted in hundreds of thousands losing their homes and set off a worldwide economic collapse. In response to the greed and mismanagement which led to this disaster, the administration pushed and passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and effectively gave $700 billion to bail out the people who caused this crisis in the first place. Rather than put that money to good use, at least some of it was used to give outrageous bonuses to the criminals who had defrauded the American public. Do you find any fault with the Bush Administration on this issue? How do these things compare to the things President Obama has done. You can make the comparison based upon tax dollars spent, job growth or decline, economic growth or decline or rate of combat related deaths. I would welcome an informed discussion and comparison on this.
Finally, none of the above is intended to be either insulting or any sort of attack on your character. If for some reason you feel I have insulted or attacked you, please accept this was never my intent. My intent has always been to get past the bickering and the insults, to get rid of all the things that are trying to keep us at war with each other and to get us together so we can truly discuss the issues and find some common ground.
I pointed out that in this situation, the President is not required, and technically shouldn't return the salute and was promptly lectured on the President not showing proper respect. The conversation went downhill from there. Now that any other readers have at least an idea of what is going on, I'll return to my intended audience. Thank you for your patience.
You are absolutely correct. I do not know you at all, just as you do not know me at all. The only thing I have to go on is to gather an impression based upon your previous responses. Based on those responses, I have assumed that you personally never served in the military. That assumption is limited to you. I have no idea who you know, or which of your relatives might have served, nor is that pertinent to the discussion. Being the child, spouse or parent of a service member certainly is difficult, but it is not the same experience as what the service member goes through.
My assumption also does not mean I believe you dislike the military or that you are not a proud supporter. I previously mentioned some of the many challenges our military faces each day and you may or may not be aware of them and may or may not worry about them. I lack the information to know these things, but this is also irrelevant. During the Obama administration I have seen numerous posts about the President and about the military. The Obama posts are either positive, or they are derogatory and negative, meaning they contain insults, misrepresentations, and often, outright lies. Posts about the military generally express support for our troops, but never address any of the issues those troops are dealing with. If the posts mention President Obama they follow the same trend with insults, misrepresentations etc. Based upon the information available, I can only assume that most Americans are completely unaware of the true issues facing our troops and while they are ranting about an old picture which is a clear misrepresentation, men and women are dying. Personally, I think that is more important.
I served in the United States Navy from July 1980 through October 1988 and received an honorable discharge with an RE code 1. The RE code indicates whether someone can reenlist. A 1 means you are wanted back. I believe 4 is worst and means you will not be allowed back. I have many fond memories of my service, they were some of the best years of my life. I also saw and experienced many things which I feel would concern most Americans, if they were aware of them. These experiences were no worse than what many, if not most, service members have. I'm certain the difficulties facing those in combat are much worse than my own.
How long would most young adults last working a schedule of 36 hours on and 12 hours off? That's 36 hours, hard at work, breaking only for meals, no sleep allowed. My limit was 2 weeks, and by the end, if I walked further than about 200 feet I would fall asleep while walking. If I sat down for longer than 5 minutes I would fall asleep. Yet, I was expected to perform work, that if done incorrectly could endanger the entire ship. All of this because it made someone look better.
If you've never experienced a hurricane onboard a ship, I don't recommend it. I experienced two, and both could have been avoided. The first one resulted in minimal damage and one death, we were only in the storm for about 14 hours. The second we enjoyed for 2 1/2 days with only one serious injury and about $5 million in damages. During that time, I spent about 20 hours each day working, because a loss of propulsion would have been disastrous. We were also limited to cold cut sandwiches, since cooking when the ship is rolling up to 30° each way is impossible. So is sleeping.
Everyone in the military is familiar with Taps. It is played each night at lights out and is also played at all military funerals. Can you imagine what it feels like to take the American Flag off of the casket of one of your closest friends, fold it and hand it to his widow while Taps is playing, knowing his death was senseless? Every day someone in the military dies senselessly in a non-combat related death. How often do we hear about them?
During one incident, that I can't give much detail on, I tried everything I could to get the officer in charge to issue required orders to deal with a casualty situation. When he failed to give those orders, I followed my procedures and took the necessary steps to protect the crew. Had I not taken those steps, the result could have cost several hundred lives and caused an event which would still be remembered. I was reprimanded for my actions because it made the officer look bad.
Everyday our troops are dealing with shoddy equipment, equipment that costs us as much as 100 times the retail price of that equipment. They are working in conditions we would not subject our pets to and they are subjected to stresses and pressures most can't imagine. While this may concern you and many others I see no evidence of concern on Facebook, or elsewhere. All I see are unwarranted personal attacks on the President. When I begin to see something addressing these issues, then I'll believe people are worried about them.
You seem to have accused me of having a very narrow and limited viewpoint: "You might get off your high horse and realize that people come from all walks of life, not just your little corner of the world..." I do think highly of myself, but I don't consider myself better than anyone. I believe there are some areas where I'm better than average, and I know I fall well below average in other areas. As for my "little corner of the world", that is a fair description of my current situation. When at home I spend most of my time sitting in the corner, surrounded by by guitars, amps, recording gear and computer. I might do many things, but most of them I do from this chair.
However, this is not my whole life. During my life I've lived in 8 states, 7 since I became an adult. I've visited all 50 states, 2 U.S. Territories and 2 foreign countries. At one time I corresponded regularly with people on 5 different continents. I have met, worked with and been friends with people from all walks of life. From porn stars to preachers, top executives to manual laborers, millionaires to the homeless, my friends over the years have covered just about everything. Every religion, every ethnic group and many nationalities are represented in that group. I've also worked in a wide range of different fields. From all these people and all these experiences, I've tried to learn things.
I've sat down and learned about the history, importance and traditions of tea from an elderly Chinese man. I've sat and listened to a holocaust survivor and a Pearl Harbor survivor. I've sat face to face and listened to people who experienced the Great Depression and the jungles of Vietnam. To supplement my experiences, I've read. Since the age of 6 I've averaged somewhere between 30 and 50 books each year, and the books have covered a fairly wide range of genres and subjects. While I might now sit in a little corner of the world, my view is probably much wider than average.
Other than a few limited excursions, most people spend their entire life within 100 miles of where they grew up. Most people have significant regular contact with only a few hundred people. The average American watches more television in a week than I watch in a year. I read more in a year than the average reads in their lifetime. Because of all my experiences, I feel that my world view is somewhat broader than most, and I feel this gives me a better than average grasp of most situations.
Lastly, noticing and worrying about what the President does is good and admirable. Being aware of the government is the responsibility of everyone, and constructive criticism is important. However, name calling or spreading lies about anyone is neither good nor admirable. While you are at it, why not take a few minutes to consider some of the possible mistakes made by previous Presidents? In all fairness, if President Obama "seems to reflect the brokenness of this country in most everything he does", shouldn't his actions be compared with President Bush's actions?
Here are a few things to consider. Ten years ago we invaded Iraq over non-existent weapons, spent over a trillion dollars in a war that ended thousands of U.S. lives, and left the country worse off than it was before we liberated it. Do you feel this was appropriate? Over 11 years ago we invaded Afghanistan, the same country that caused us to boycott the 1980 Olympics in protest of the USSR invading them. Any military strategist could have, based upon the USSR's failure, told you that winning a war in Afghanistan was not possible without completely destroying the country. Add 2000 more lives and another trillion dollars to the "War on Terror". Has it been effective? Since 2001 the number and severity of terrorist attacks worldwide has increased dramatically. It could be the near absence of attacks on U.S. soil is due to the War on Terror, but it really isn't proper to take credit for things that haven't happened. Do you feel the 6500 American lives lost fighting the War on Terror somehow compensate for the 3000 lives lost in the September 11 attacks?
Also during the Bush Administration, we had an enormous financial crisis. This crisis, which was influenced by changes in banking and securities regulations, cost 6 million American jobs, resulted in hundreds of thousands losing their homes and set off a worldwide economic collapse. In response to the greed and mismanagement which led to this disaster, the administration pushed and passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and effectively gave $700 billion to bail out the people who caused this crisis in the first place. Rather than put that money to good use, at least some of it was used to give outrageous bonuses to the criminals who had defrauded the American public. Do you find any fault with the Bush Administration on this issue? How do these things compare to the things President Obama has done. You can make the comparison based upon tax dollars spent, job growth or decline, economic growth or decline or rate of combat related deaths. I would welcome an informed discussion and comparison on this.
Finally, none of the above is intended to be either insulting or any sort of attack on your character. If for some reason you feel I have insulted or attacked you, please accept this was never my intent. My intent has always been to get past the bickering and the insults, to get rid of all the things that are trying to keep us at war with each other and to get us together so we can truly discuss the issues and find some common ground.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
It's Time for a Burn the Constitution Day
For the last few months, we've been besieged with stories about the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The argument as I see it is rather simple, everyone in the United States, regardless if it is legal or wise for them to have a gun, should be able to find legal ways to buy guns. Any attempt to keep people who are legally barred from owning guns due to past crimes, or any attempt to identify persons not mentally stable enough to own guns is somehow a serious threat to the Second Amendment. While I can't follow the chain of logic while sober, I can understand concern over protecting our rights.
I'm straining to hear and scouring the media for cries of outrage over the rest of our rights and I hear silence. Worse than the silence are the demands that several other rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States by The Bill of Rights, be completely obliterated. The truly confusing part of this is the people who were frantic over the Second Amendment, when it was in no way threatened are the same people who are screaming that we throw out the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. If we're going to throw out so many rights, rights so important, the Constitution would not exist without them, then maybe it's time to throw everything out. We can make it so much simpler by replacing the entire Constitution with "In God and the Republican Party We Trust". After all, between the two, our best interests are certain to be protected. I foresee Utopia.
Sadly, even President Obama feels it's okay to suspend some rights, although he hasn't gone all in on this lunacy. At this point, Dzhokar Tsarnaev is still hospitalized in serious condition and not well enough to be illegally interrogated. Perhaps someone will come to their senses before he recovers, and maybe pigs will fly.
Within minutes of the capture of Dzhokar Tsarnaev in the Boston area, Senator Lindsey Graham was urging he be classified as an enemy combatant. Senator Graham has now been joined by Senators McCain and Ayotte and Representative King. In addition, there have been demands to investigate the citizenship process. Apparently there is a belief that Tsarnaev, who was nine years old when he came to the United States, might have already been a terrorist that we somehow overlooked. Before we start questioning the motives of a 9 year old, who fled conditions most of us can't begin to imagine, lets look at our own 9 year olds. How many times has a 9 year old said "I hate you!" ,"I wish you were dead!", "I wish I had never been born!" and so many other awful statements? They say such things to friends, siblings, even their parents, yet the vast majority go on to live normal, productive lives. And some children, who are model students, never act out, never talk back, never have a violent outburst, go on to commit atrocities. Maybe we need to subject all children to an annual waterboarding session.
By classifying Dzhokar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, he is no longer protected against self-incrimination, nor protected against incarceration without due process of law. So long Fifth Amendment. Also, he is not allowed access to legal representation, he does not have to be informed of his rights and he is not guaranteed a speedy and public trial. Who needs the Sixth Amendment anyway? He can also forget about bail, or about being protected from cruel and unusual punishment, but then again, isn't cruel and unusual punishment more interesting? Trash that Eighth Amendment and let's get unusual. Since much of the Fourteenth Amendment is clarification and extension of earlier Amendments, including the Fifth, it will have to go. I almost forgot the most important part. Since completely disregarding all these Amendments violates the Tenth Amendment, but do we really want to keep the government from having unlimited power?
Potentially more alarming is something making the rounds of social media, a simple picture with the caption "Kick Islam Out Of America". Is the First Amendment no longer of any value to us? Any time a crime is committed, should we be demanding the criminal's religion no longer be allowed in this country? You may want to rethink that position. To date, no religion has shown any evidence whatsoever their beliefs are the one and only true religion. Until that happens, kicking out religions seems like a bad idea. What if the one you kick out turns out to be the right one after all? Boy, Sarah Palin is going to be livid!
As terrible as the Boston Marathon bombing was, now isn't the time to start throwing away our rights through some misguided need for retribution. Now is the time to allow our legal system to do its job. The good news is, the legal system has been much more effective at prosecuting terrorism suspects than the military tribunal system. Why not go with what works?
I'm straining to hear and scouring the media for cries of outrage over the rest of our rights and I hear silence. Worse than the silence are the demands that several other rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States by The Bill of Rights, be completely obliterated. The truly confusing part of this is the people who were frantic over the Second Amendment, when it was in no way threatened are the same people who are screaming that we throw out the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. If we're going to throw out so many rights, rights so important, the Constitution would not exist without them, then maybe it's time to throw everything out. We can make it so much simpler by replacing the entire Constitution with "In God and the Republican Party We Trust". After all, between the two, our best interests are certain to be protected. I foresee Utopia.
Sadly, even President Obama feels it's okay to suspend some rights, although he hasn't gone all in on this lunacy. At this point, Dzhokar Tsarnaev is still hospitalized in serious condition and not well enough to be illegally interrogated. Perhaps someone will come to their senses before he recovers, and maybe pigs will fly.
Within minutes of the capture of Dzhokar Tsarnaev in the Boston area, Senator Lindsey Graham was urging he be classified as an enemy combatant. Senator Graham has now been joined by Senators McCain and Ayotte and Representative King. In addition, there have been demands to investigate the citizenship process. Apparently there is a belief that Tsarnaev, who was nine years old when he came to the United States, might have already been a terrorist that we somehow overlooked. Before we start questioning the motives of a 9 year old, who fled conditions most of us can't begin to imagine, lets look at our own 9 year olds. How many times has a 9 year old said "I hate you!" ,"I wish you were dead!", "I wish I had never been born!" and so many other awful statements? They say such things to friends, siblings, even their parents, yet the vast majority go on to live normal, productive lives. And some children, who are model students, never act out, never talk back, never have a violent outburst, go on to commit atrocities. Maybe we need to subject all children to an annual waterboarding session.
By classifying Dzhokar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, he is no longer protected against self-incrimination, nor protected against incarceration without due process of law. So long Fifth Amendment. Also, he is not allowed access to legal representation, he does not have to be informed of his rights and he is not guaranteed a speedy and public trial. Who needs the Sixth Amendment anyway? He can also forget about bail, or about being protected from cruel and unusual punishment, but then again, isn't cruel and unusual punishment more interesting? Trash that Eighth Amendment and let's get unusual. Since much of the Fourteenth Amendment is clarification and extension of earlier Amendments, including the Fifth, it will have to go. I almost forgot the most important part. Since completely disregarding all these Amendments violates the Tenth Amendment, but do we really want to keep the government from having unlimited power?
Potentially more alarming is something making the rounds of social media, a simple picture with the caption "Kick Islam Out Of America". Is the First Amendment no longer of any value to us? Any time a crime is committed, should we be demanding the criminal's religion no longer be allowed in this country? You may want to rethink that position. To date, no religion has shown any evidence whatsoever their beliefs are the one and only true religion. Until that happens, kicking out religions seems like a bad idea. What if the one you kick out turns out to be the right one after all? Boy, Sarah Palin is going to be livid!
As terrible as the Boston Marathon bombing was, now isn't the time to start throwing away our rights through some misguided need for retribution. Now is the time to allow our legal system to do its job. The good news is, the legal system has been much more effective at prosecuting terrorism suspects than the military tribunal system. Why not go with what works?
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Where Do We Go From Here?
If you've been paying attention to the news, you're already aware that the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, has been taken into custody. His brother, Tamerlan
Tsarnaev, died after a shootout with law enforcement
officials in Watertown, MA. Right now, much of Boston, and much of the
United States is celebrating the end of this ordeal. Considering the
potential, the conclusion of the manhunt and standoff went very
smoothly, and more importantly, without the loss of additional lives.
What's next? Already there are calls to treat Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant rather than as a naturalized U.S. citizen. I'm hoping that you are shocked to hear this, if not, you should be. Since September 11, 2001, the defining line between U.S. citizen and enemy combatant has been eroded. Because a war on terror was declared and we went to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, this could be justified. After all, if, during WWII, a German squadron had come ashore in Georgia and started killing people and destroying factories, they would obviously be considered enemy combatants, as would any U.S. citizens that helped them. However, the rules at the time strictly limited interrogation of prisoners of war, and set guidelines for their treatment. No longer is this true. Although President Obama has issued directives on stopping torture as a means of interrogation, enemy combatants can no longer expect to receive decent, humane treatment.
However, a United States citizen has many rights, protected by, above all, our Constitution. Before this man, a citizen, can be considered an enemy combatant, we need to figure out who the enemy is. Are we at war with Russia, or any of the Russian Republics? There is no indication this young man has had any contact with anyone in Afghanistan, so we can rule that out. The only possible connection I can see is if we are at war with Islam. I suppose, that could be used to define him as an enemy combatant.
Oops. That pesky First Amendment is going to need some changes. Suddenly, anyone who is not of the proper religion, no longer has rights. Suddenly, any person, for any crime, can be refused due process, based solely upon their religious beliefs. This is what is known as a precedent. Worried about the government taking away your guns, because they want to require background checks? That's absolutely nothing compared to this can of worms. If a U.S. citizen, with no affiliation with any enemy, can be considered an enemy combatant, where does that leave you and I?
Because I write things that are critical of our government, am I a potential enemy combatant? Because you own 7 guns and just bought 400 rounds of ammunition, are you one? And the best part, as an enemy combatant, you don't have to commit a criminal act to be taken prisoner. As an enemy combatant, you don't get a lawyer, or a phone call. You don't get your Miranda rights read to you, because they don't apply. You don't get to complain if the police beat you senseless. You don't get to go to court and have charges filed against you. Until the undefined, undeclared war with the undefined enemy is over, we're both prisoners. No more courts and trials, no more appeals, no more complaints about inhumane conditions. Any crime, call it an act by an enemy combatant, and the problem ceases to exist.
Many of you feel the need for some sort of retribution. Quite a few that consider themselves good, moral Christians would be happier to see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dead. I'll let you wrestle with your conscience on that one. His death won't bring anyone back to life. His death won't restore lost limbs or heal broken bones. His death serves no purpose other than help convince ourselves of our own righteousness.
His life, however, is precious. He is not some monster, nor some evil spawn of hell. He's a young man with parents and friends, a young man with hopes and dreams, a young man who did something terrible, but still a man, and a citizen of these United States of America. If, instead of focusing on retribution, we focus on knowledge and understanding, his life can return some of the value lost by his actions. From this young man we can learn, not how to figure out targets and identify terrorists, but how to keep people from becoming terrorists in the first place.
You don't cure cancer by killing everyone afflicted, you cure it by trying to find its origins and preventing it entirely. Isn't a cure for the hatred and the violence what we really need?
What's next? Already there are calls to treat Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant rather than as a naturalized U.S. citizen. I'm hoping that you are shocked to hear this, if not, you should be. Since September 11, 2001, the defining line between U.S. citizen and enemy combatant has been eroded. Because a war on terror was declared and we went to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, this could be justified. After all, if, during WWII, a German squadron had come ashore in Georgia and started killing people and destroying factories, they would obviously be considered enemy combatants, as would any U.S. citizens that helped them. However, the rules at the time strictly limited interrogation of prisoners of war, and set guidelines for their treatment. No longer is this true. Although President Obama has issued directives on stopping torture as a means of interrogation, enemy combatants can no longer expect to receive decent, humane treatment.
However, a United States citizen has many rights, protected by, above all, our Constitution. Before this man, a citizen, can be considered an enemy combatant, we need to figure out who the enemy is. Are we at war with Russia, or any of the Russian Republics? There is no indication this young man has had any contact with anyone in Afghanistan, so we can rule that out. The only possible connection I can see is if we are at war with Islam. I suppose, that could be used to define him as an enemy combatant.
Oops. That pesky First Amendment is going to need some changes. Suddenly, anyone who is not of the proper religion, no longer has rights. Suddenly, any person, for any crime, can be refused due process, based solely upon their religious beliefs. This is what is known as a precedent. Worried about the government taking away your guns, because they want to require background checks? That's absolutely nothing compared to this can of worms. If a U.S. citizen, with no affiliation with any enemy, can be considered an enemy combatant, where does that leave you and I?
Because I write things that are critical of our government, am I a potential enemy combatant? Because you own 7 guns and just bought 400 rounds of ammunition, are you one? And the best part, as an enemy combatant, you don't have to commit a criminal act to be taken prisoner. As an enemy combatant, you don't get a lawyer, or a phone call. You don't get your Miranda rights read to you, because they don't apply. You don't get to complain if the police beat you senseless. You don't get to go to court and have charges filed against you. Until the undefined, undeclared war with the undefined enemy is over, we're both prisoners. No more courts and trials, no more appeals, no more complaints about inhumane conditions. Any crime, call it an act by an enemy combatant, and the problem ceases to exist.
Many of you feel the need for some sort of retribution. Quite a few that consider themselves good, moral Christians would be happier to see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dead. I'll let you wrestle with your conscience on that one. His death won't bring anyone back to life. His death won't restore lost limbs or heal broken bones. His death serves no purpose other than help convince ourselves of our own righteousness.
His life, however, is precious. He is not some monster, nor some evil spawn of hell. He's a young man with parents and friends, a young man with hopes and dreams, a young man who did something terrible, but still a man, and a citizen of these United States of America. If, instead of focusing on retribution, we focus on knowledge and understanding, his life can return some of the value lost by his actions. From this young man we can learn, not how to figure out targets and identify terrorists, but how to keep people from becoming terrorists in the first place.
You don't cure cancer by killing everyone afflicted, you cure it by trying to find its origins and preventing it entirely. Isn't a cure for the hatred and the violence what we really need?
Friday, April 12, 2013
With This Ring, I Thee Wed
I have a problem with marriage, other than the obvious problem I have making one last longer than the wedding cake. Apparently, most of the country also has problems with marriage. Divorce is so common, it is not only accepted, but is almost expected. Perhaps some basic understanding might help clear up the problems.
For all the people who are happily married, I admire and respect you. You are making something work that is not designed to work in today's world. Some of you are in your first, and probably only, marriage, while others are on their second, third or fourth. Regardless, if you're able to make one work then you are both incredible people. For the ones struggling with marriage (or despairing of ever finding the right person to marry), keep your chin up. I hope that you will find a solution that brings you happiness.
The problem with marriage is easy to see when you try to define marriage. What exactly is it? I know some of you are scratching your heads wondering what is wrong with me, but bear with me, I'll explain. Marriage can be defined in at least three different ways: a legal contract, a social convention, and a religious institution.
Many of the arguments for "traditional marriage" rest on the status of marriage as a religious institution, a covenant between a man and a woman sanctioned by God. If this is true, then marriage should be granted protection under the First Amendment. Don't start shouting "hallelujah" yet. As a part of religion, marriage would only be bound by the beliefs of each individual church, making polygamy and gay marriage legal. It also opens up the door for people to marry their pets, their vehicles, even their deity.
When I was in school, it was common for a boy and girl, who were dating, to exchange class rings. This showed a commitment to each other and stood as a symbol to others of that commitment. No laws or religious doctrines regulate this, it's merely a social convention, and as such it changes from place to place and changes over time. Now I think the procedure is a status change and a post on Facebook. As a social convention, marriage varies from place to place and has changed dramatically over time, that is what social conventions do, they reflect the local attitudes and beliefs.
Now to the legal contract portion of marriage. Technically, I should reduce my font size for this. Marriage is a contract between two people with certain rights and responsibilities clearly defined, it even requires a license. Over time, as society changes, laws change, and this is certainly true with marriage. Originally, the marriage contract was between the groom and the father of the bride. It was in effect, a change of ownership, with payment made prior to transfer of title. And the groom could, after the marriage, get some or all of his money back, if the property in question was not as advertised. The property in question, is the wife. The reasons behind this were quite simple, a woman, under the law at the time, had no rights. She could not sign a contract, own property or initiate any legal action. A remnant of this practice is in common use today with the father of the bride, passing her off to the groom in front of the legal representative to witness and sign approval of the transfer.
Now do you begin to see some of the problems? As most of the United States has slowly come to realize, women are not property. They are actual human beings with feelings and even thoughts and therefore should be given at least some rights. Of course it's ridiculous to think about giving them equal rights. If you're going to do that you might as well outlaw sarcasm.
Under current laws, from a legal standpoint, a marriage is equivalent to a business partnership. Like any partnership, members have certain rights and responsibilities, there are tax benefits and it can be dissolved if the members are not satisfied with the arrangement. The only difference is that marriage, along with the rights, responsibilities and benefits, is not equally available to all Americans. Imagine being denied a business license because your partner is not the right sex.
Looking at marriage under each individual classification, a fair definition should make marriage open to everyone. However, a narrow-minded view, supported by many, is that one viewpoint should prevail. The question in my mind, is how far can this be taken? If marriage discrimination is legal based upon sexual orientation, why can't we ban interracial marriages? Interfaith marriages? Marriages where one or both people are too old? Too fat? Too stupid? The trend over the past century or so has been to remove discrimination. It has been a slow process, but progress has been made. Is it in our best interest to start putting discrimination back into our society?
For all the people who are happily married, I admire and respect you. You are making something work that is not designed to work in today's world. Some of you are in your first, and probably only, marriage, while others are on their second, third or fourth. Regardless, if you're able to make one work then you are both incredible people. For the ones struggling with marriage (or despairing of ever finding the right person to marry), keep your chin up. I hope that you will find a solution that brings you happiness.
The problem with marriage is easy to see when you try to define marriage. What exactly is it? I know some of you are scratching your heads wondering what is wrong with me, but bear with me, I'll explain. Marriage can be defined in at least three different ways: a legal contract, a social convention, and a religious institution.
Many of the arguments for "traditional marriage" rest on the status of marriage as a religious institution, a covenant between a man and a woman sanctioned by God. If this is true, then marriage should be granted protection under the First Amendment. Don't start shouting "hallelujah" yet. As a part of religion, marriage would only be bound by the beliefs of each individual church, making polygamy and gay marriage legal. It also opens up the door for people to marry their pets, their vehicles, even their deity.
When I was in school, it was common for a boy and girl, who were dating, to exchange class rings. This showed a commitment to each other and stood as a symbol to others of that commitment. No laws or religious doctrines regulate this, it's merely a social convention, and as such it changes from place to place and changes over time. Now I think the procedure is a status change and a post on Facebook. As a social convention, marriage varies from place to place and has changed dramatically over time, that is what social conventions do, they reflect the local attitudes and beliefs.
Now to the legal contract portion of marriage. Technically, I should reduce my font size for this. Marriage is a contract between two people with certain rights and responsibilities clearly defined, it even requires a license. Over time, as society changes, laws change, and this is certainly true with marriage. Originally, the marriage contract was between the groom and the father of the bride. It was in effect, a change of ownership, with payment made prior to transfer of title. And the groom could, after the marriage, get some or all of his money back, if the property in question was not as advertised. The property in question, is the wife. The reasons behind this were quite simple, a woman, under the law at the time, had no rights. She could not sign a contract, own property or initiate any legal action. A remnant of this practice is in common use today with the father of the bride, passing her off to the groom in front of the legal representative to witness and sign approval of the transfer.
Now do you begin to see some of the problems? As most of the United States has slowly come to realize, women are not property. They are actual human beings with feelings and even thoughts and therefore should be given at least some rights. Of course it's ridiculous to think about giving them equal rights. If you're going to do that you might as well outlaw sarcasm.
Under current laws, from a legal standpoint, a marriage is equivalent to a business partnership. Like any partnership, members have certain rights and responsibilities, there are tax benefits and it can be dissolved if the members are not satisfied with the arrangement. The only difference is that marriage, along with the rights, responsibilities and benefits, is not equally available to all Americans. Imagine being denied a business license because your partner is not the right sex.
Looking at marriage under each individual classification, a fair definition should make marriage open to everyone. However, a narrow-minded view, supported by many, is that one viewpoint should prevail. The question in my mind, is how far can this be taken? If marriage discrimination is legal based upon sexual orientation, why can't we ban interracial marriages? Interfaith marriages? Marriages where one or both people are too old? Too fat? Too stupid? The trend over the past century or so has been to remove discrimination. It has been a slow process, but progress has been made. Is it in our best interest to start putting discrimination back into our society?
Saturday, April 6, 2013
They're Coming to Take Me Away
Some days I look around and wonder: Has the whole world gone crazy or is it just me. Just me would be much better. I would be quite happy locked in a padded cell with Lego's and Play-Doh and maybe a Spirograph. If you come to visit me, I want cake and maybe a teddy bear. Unfortunately, I don't think it is just me, and they probably wouldn't let me have the Lego's anyway.
Several times in the past few years I've stated "problems only get fixed when they are too expensive to ignore". The problem can be anything from dirty dishes to industrial safety. For some people, one dirty dish is too much for them and everything has to be washed or put in the dishwasher immediately, others will actually buy dishes rather than wash the dirty ones. For individuals, the expense isn't necessarily monetary.
Corporations, however, put a dollar value on everything. If a faulty auto part is discovered, the manufacturer will usually use it, because it's cheaper to do a recall than to stop production. A more gruesome example is mine safety. From time to time we hear of a mine collapse with miners trapped inside. Usually these occur in other countries, but this wasn't always the case. Not too many years ago, mining disasters in the United States were altogether too common. The reason was simple, the cost of making every mine as safe as possible was more than the cost of an occasional rescue attempt. If there were any casualties, the payoff to surviving family was a bargain. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) would rarely hand out fines, and even then, the fines were not enough to matter. Then along came the wrongful death lawsuit. Suddenly, the miner's lives were worth several million each. As a result, while mining will never be a safe occupation, it is much safer today, in this country.
Am I saying that corporations knowingly cause the death of people in the name of profit. Yes. Drug companies aggressively market drugs that will cause a certain number of deaths. When they balance multibillion dollar earnings against multimillion dollar lawsuits, guess which way they choose. Auto manufacturers fought against seatbelts, then shoulder belts and finally air bags, because they cut into the profit margin. Every industry has been killing us by numbers and they will fight tooth and nail against any change. Change will only come when change is the cheaper option.
Once you fully grasp this concept, the world becomes a little scarier. Asbestos, mercury, lead-based paint, tobacco, pesticides, herbicides, and the list goes on, all things that continued in wide-spread use long after their health risks were identified. Any change that causes a major uproar, you can be certain someone's profit margin is involved. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called "Obamacare") is a perfect example. The healthcare and insurance industries are both staring at serious profit reductions. That's what all the noise is about.
Another perfect example is the current battle over gun control legislation. The weapon manufacturers, through the NRA could see a major reduction in their profits if universal background checks are required. Safety isn't the issue. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or personal protection, it isn't about the government disarming the public or overthrowing tyranny, and it certainly isn't about the lives lost to crazy people with guns. It is all about the money. The gun manufacturers and the NRA don't have to pay for those lives lost, in fact, they make money off of them. Every mass shooting results in increased gun sales as the NRA media machine strokes the paranoia of the American public. Worst case, a court might require a minor payment from a gun manufacturer for wrongful death, but, even if it isn't overturned on appeal, it's still just pocket change.
In this country, every industry has some government agency to make sure they follow the rules. Typically these agencies are run by industry insiders, which limits the amount of oversight the agencies are providing. On the rare occasions where infractions are found, the penalties are ridiculously small. Imagine a mass murderer, caught at the scene with gun in hand, all the proof necessary, so there can be no doubt of his guilt, being sentenced to 3 days in jail and a $25 fine. Imagine taking a large group out to an expensive dinner where the bill exceeds $3000 and tipping the waitstaff a quarter. Now see if you can figure out why industries have no incentive to change.
The next time you see a media frenzy over some type of government action, before you choose sides, start asking yourself a few questions. What industries are involved? How will this action affect their profits? If you take away the industry's reasons and replace them with "because we don't want to pay for it", does your opinion about the issue change? After all, how many times have you made up a reason for your children all because you didn't want to pay for whatever they wanted?
Just in case, I don't like German Chocolate cake and bring more Lego's.
Several times in the past few years I've stated "problems only get fixed when they are too expensive to ignore". The problem can be anything from dirty dishes to industrial safety. For some people, one dirty dish is too much for them and everything has to be washed or put in the dishwasher immediately, others will actually buy dishes rather than wash the dirty ones. For individuals, the expense isn't necessarily monetary.
Corporations, however, put a dollar value on everything. If a faulty auto part is discovered, the manufacturer will usually use it, because it's cheaper to do a recall than to stop production. A more gruesome example is mine safety. From time to time we hear of a mine collapse with miners trapped inside. Usually these occur in other countries, but this wasn't always the case. Not too many years ago, mining disasters in the United States were altogether too common. The reason was simple, the cost of making every mine as safe as possible was more than the cost of an occasional rescue attempt. If there were any casualties, the payoff to surviving family was a bargain. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) would rarely hand out fines, and even then, the fines were not enough to matter. Then along came the wrongful death lawsuit. Suddenly, the miner's lives were worth several million each. As a result, while mining will never be a safe occupation, it is much safer today, in this country.
Am I saying that corporations knowingly cause the death of people in the name of profit. Yes. Drug companies aggressively market drugs that will cause a certain number of deaths. When they balance multibillion dollar earnings against multimillion dollar lawsuits, guess which way they choose. Auto manufacturers fought against seatbelts, then shoulder belts and finally air bags, because they cut into the profit margin. Every industry has been killing us by numbers and they will fight tooth and nail against any change. Change will only come when change is the cheaper option.
Once you fully grasp this concept, the world becomes a little scarier. Asbestos, mercury, lead-based paint, tobacco, pesticides, herbicides, and the list goes on, all things that continued in wide-spread use long after their health risks were identified. Any change that causes a major uproar, you can be certain someone's profit margin is involved. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called "Obamacare") is a perfect example. The healthcare and insurance industries are both staring at serious profit reductions. That's what all the noise is about.
Another perfect example is the current battle over gun control legislation. The weapon manufacturers, through the NRA could see a major reduction in their profits if universal background checks are required. Safety isn't the issue. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or personal protection, it isn't about the government disarming the public or overthrowing tyranny, and it certainly isn't about the lives lost to crazy people with guns. It is all about the money. The gun manufacturers and the NRA don't have to pay for those lives lost, in fact, they make money off of them. Every mass shooting results in increased gun sales as the NRA media machine strokes the paranoia of the American public. Worst case, a court might require a minor payment from a gun manufacturer for wrongful death, but, even if it isn't overturned on appeal, it's still just pocket change.
In this country, every industry has some government agency to make sure they follow the rules. Typically these agencies are run by industry insiders, which limits the amount of oversight the agencies are providing. On the rare occasions where infractions are found, the penalties are ridiculously small. Imagine a mass murderer, caught at the scene with gun in hand, all the proof necessary, so there can be no doubt of his guilt, being sentenced to 3 days in jail and a $25 fine. Imagine taking a large group out to an expensive dinner where the bill exceeds $3000 and tipping the waitstaff a quarter. Now see if you can figure out why industries have no incentive to change.
The next time you see a media frenzy over some type of government action, before you choose sides, start asking yourself a few questions. What industries are involved? How will this action affect their profits? If you take away the industry's reasons and replace them with "because we don't want to pay for it", does your opinion about the issue change? After all, how many times have you made up a reason for your children all because you didn't want to pay for whatever they wanted?
Just in case, I don't like German Chocolate cake and bring more Lego's.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The Price We Pay
If anyone out there has a set of rose colored goggles they can spare I can really use them. I am in urgent need of some sort of filter to keep me from seeing how truly insane our country has become.
I just struggled through an article on the school safety measures recommended by a panel funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The struggle was keeping my jaw clenched while reading to avoid vomiting on my keyboard. The core of the recommendation is that selected school officials undergo a background check, receive training and then carry a gun to protect the school. This makes perfect sense in a world where the Senate is preparing to vote on whether to grant $40 million for schools to improve security. With a Defense Department budget of nearly $700 billion, that seems a bit low. Roughly .000057% of the Defense Budget, that's equivalent to paying an extra $20 to put brakes on your Lamborghini.
Why is the NRA universally opposed to background checks for gun purchases? This is a very serious and extremely important question. If the NRA is about gun safety and promoting responsible gun ownership and use, then they should demand background checks. After all, it only takes one nut case with a gun to make all gun owners look bad.
Regardless of propaganda, regardless of any gun safety and training programs, the NRA is interested in only one thing: Selling Guns. If they could get away with it, they would be lobbying to require every student to own and carry a gun to school, and once the killing began, they would claim it was because the students needed to carry more guns.
Guns are a very high profit margin commodity. Thanks to the lessons taught by Henry Ford, the cost to manufacture guns is extremely low, leaving a very high profit margin. Plastic and steel, with automated casting and machining processes, the only labor required is assembly, and that labor cost is quite low. If automobile profit margins were comparable to gun profit margins, a cheap car would exceed $100,000.
Background checks cut down on the number of people who are able to buy guns. Some because something in their history shows they should not be allowed to own guns, and some because they fear the background check. Still, this shouldn't have a major effect on the number of guns sold. After all, if only 2% fail the background check, that's only 2% less guns, right?
Wrong. The people, least qualified to own guns (due to mental instability) tend to buy more guns than the average responsible gun owner. The responsible gun owner buys a gun, or guns, for a purpose. The purpose is served by one or two guns. Multiple purposes might require more guns, but there is a reasonable limit. The irrational gun owner buys guns for an irrational purpose. Rational limitations do not apply. Quite often the problem is paranoia. They feel threatened by everyone and everything. Imagine feeling the whole world is trying to do bad things to you. Now imagine how many guns, knives, swords, etc. it would take to make you feel safe. Keep in mind "they" can get all the weapons "they" want.
Although this is purely speculation on my part (based upon the responsible and irresponsible/irrational gun owners I have known), I imagine eliminating 2% of gun owners through background checks would result in approximately 10% decrease in gun sales. Even worse, if crime rates decrease, less people will feel the need to buy guns. Within a few years, gun sales could easily drop by 25% or more. Numbers like that worry the NRA and the gun makers that fund them.
Instead of spending pennies to put guns in schools, why not spend dollars putting education in schools?
I just struggled through an article on the school safety measures recommended by a panel funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The struggle was keeping my jaw clenched while reading to avoid vomiting on my keyboard. The core of the recommendation is that selected school officials undergo a background check, receive training and then carry a gun to protect the school. This makes perfect sense in a world where the Senate is preparing to vote on whether to grant $40 million for schools to improve security. With a Defense Department budget of nearly $700 billion, that seems a bit low. Roughly .000057% of the Defense Budget, that's equivalent to paying an extra $20 to put brakes on your Lamborghini.
Why is the NRA universally opposed to background checks for gun purchases? This is a very serious and extremely important question. If the NRA is about gun safety and promoting responsible gun ownership and use, then they should demand background checks. After all, it only takes one nut case with a gun to make all gun owners look bad.
Regardless of propaganda, regardless of any gun safety and training programs, the NRA is interested in only one thing: Selling Guns. If they could get away with it, they would be lobbying to require every student to own and carry a gun to school, and once the killing began, they would claim it was because the students needed to carry more guns.
Guns are a very high profit margin commodity. Thanks to the lessons taught by Henry Ford, the cost to manufacture guns is extremely low, leaving a very high profit margin. Plastic and steel, with automated casting and machining processes, the only labor required is assembly, and that labor cost is quite low. If automobile profit margins were comparable to gun profit margins, a cheap car would exceed $100,000.
Background checks cut down on the number of people who are able to buy guns. Some because something in their history shows they should not be allowed to own guns, and some because they fear the background check. Still, this shouldn't have a major effect on the number of guns sold. After all, if only 2% fail the background check, that's only 2% less guns, right?
Wrong. The people, least qualified to own guns (due to mental instability) tend to buy more guns than the average responsible gun owner. The responsible gun owner buys a gun, or guns, for a purpose. The purpose is served by one or two guns. Multiple purposes might require more guns, but there is a reasonable limit. The irrational gun owner buys guns for an irrational purpose. Rational limitations do not apply. Quite often the problem is paranoia. They feel threatened by everyone and everything. Imagine feeling the whole world is trying to do bad things to you. Now imagine how many guns, knives, swords, etc. it would take to make you feel safe. Keep in mind "they" can get all the weapons "they" want.
Although this is purely speculation on my part (based upon the responsible and irresponsible/irrational gun owners I have known), I imagine eliminating 2% of gun owners through background checks would result in approximately 10% decrease in gun sales. Even worse, if crime rates decrease, less people will feel the need to buy guns. Within a few years, gun sales could easily drop by 25% or more. Numbers like that worry the NRA and the gun makers that fund them.
Instead of spending pennies to put guns in schools, why not spend dollars putting education in schools?
That'll Teach You a Lesson
Her name was Mrs. Mercedes Fisher, the Second Grade teacher at Plainville Elementary School, where I spent the first six years of my sentence to the education system. Among other things, she had been my mother's Second Grade teacher and she holds the honor of my favorite teacher. I honestly couldn't say whether or not she was a good teacher since I am somewhat biased. But, I do feel that she enjoyed teaching, for what that is worth.
First Grade was too traumatic. Since I was not able to attend kindergarten, it was my first experience away from my mother. Coupled with the recent death of my father, my first grade teacher had no chance of making a favorable impression. Second Grade was a different story. I had friends, I was enjoying learning and Mrs. Fisher was happy to teach. There were probably later teachers who were better, and certainly some who were worse, but she will always be my favorite.
If you were to compile a list of thankless occupations, truck driving would rank somewhere near the top and not far behind would be teaching. If you try to discipline the children, parents will be upset, if you don't discipline the children parents will be upset, the school board will turn on you at the least provocation and the pay is pathetic. Teachers are grading papers before school, after school and on the weekends, just trying to keep up, and often they have to use their own money to buy classroom supplies. People don't become teachers because it's a good career choice, unless their only other option is truck driver. Most teachers are there for one reason, they love to teach.
This is not to say there are no bad teachers. I experienced several, and I'm certain there are some in every school system. Just like every other job, some people get into it and find out they hate it. Some enjoy their job, but just aren't cut out to teach and never connect with the students. The best are the ones students come back to, years later, to thank them for being such a great teacher.
Many places are pushing to tie teacher salaries to standardized test scores, and there is a great deal of opposition to this, especially from teachers. However, I think with some provisions, this could be an excellent proposition for everyone. Give me a chance, and I think you will agree.
First step is to standardize teachers salaries. In order to do that we need to find a median salary range, based upon industry pay. In order to do that, take any corporation, take the lowest 5 salaries and the 5 highest salaries, add them together and divide by 10, depending on the local industries, this gives you an average salary between $100,000 and $500,000. To be fair, set the standard teaching salary at $200,000 per year with adjustments for standardized test scores.
The next step is the standardization process. As has been shown many times before, standardized test results vary widely. The problem is, school systems are not standardized. A school system in a depressed area might have a budget per student that is only 10% of the budget per student of a school system in a district with much higher average income. If you believe the quality of education is going to be the same, I'll gladly bring you some of McDonald's finest prime rib for only $25 per serving.
The last step is to standardize the students. I'm not certain how to go about this, since every child is different and every child has a different home situation. Is the 12 year old who has to watch 3 younger siblings while her mother (who never graduated high school) works a second job going to do as well in school as the 12 year old with 2 college educated parents, that have plenty of time to help her with school work? The only solution I can think of is to take every child at birth and put them into the educational system. No contact with parents, nothing to keep them from being standardized within the system. Then perhaps we can turn out standardized students.
Just think, standardized students, in standardized schools being taught by standardized teachers to take standardized tests to prepare them for a standardized world.
What a wonderful world it would be.
First Grade was too traumatic. Since I was not able to attend kindergarten, it was my first experience away from my mother. Coupled with the recent death of my father, my first grade teacher had no chance of making a favorable impression. Second Grade was a different story. I had friends, I was enjoying learning and Mrs. Fisher was happy to teach. There were probably later teachers who were better, and certainly some who were worse, but she will always be my favorite.
If you were to compile a list of thankless occupations, truck driving would rank somewhere near the top and not far behind would be teaching. If you try to discipline the children, parents will be upset, if you don't discipline the children parents will be upset, the school board will turn on you at the least provocation and the pay is pathetic. Teachers are grading papers before school, after school and on the weekends, just trying to keep up, and often they have to use their own money to buy classroom supplies. People don't become teachers because it's a good career choice, unless their only other option is truck driver. Most teachers are there for one reason, they love to teach.
This is not to say there are no bad teachers. I experienced several, and I'm certain there are some in every school system. Just like every other job, some people get into it and find out they hate it. Some enjoy their job, but just aren't cut out to teach and never connect with the students. The best are the ones students come back to, years later, to thank them for being such a great teacher.
Many places are pushing to tie teacher salaries to standardized test scores, and there is a great deal of opposition to this, especially from teachers. However, I think with some provisions, this could be an excellent proposition for everyone. Give me a chance, and I think you will agree.
First step is to standardize teachers salaries. In order to do that we need to find a median salary range, based upon industry pay. In order to do that, take any corporation, take the lowest 5 salaries and the 5 highest salaries, add them together and divide by 10, depending on the local industries, this gives you an average salary between $100,000 and $500,000. To be fair, set the standard teaching salary at $200,000 per year with adjustments for standardized test scores.
The next step is the standardization process. As has been shown many times before, standardized test results vary widely. The problem is, school systems are not standardized. A school system in a depressed area might have a budget per student that is only 10% of the budget per student of a school system in a district with much higher average income. If you believe the quality of education is going to be the same, I'll gladly bring you some of McDonald's finest prime rib for only $25 per serving.
The last step is to standardize the students. I'm not certain how to go about this, since every child is different and every child has a different home situation. Is the 12 year old who has to watch 3 younger siblings while her mother (who never graduated high school) works a second job going to do as well in school as the 12 year old with 2 college educated parents, that have plenty of time to help her with school work? The only solution I can think of is to take every child at birth and put them into the educational system. No contact with parents, nothing to keep them from being standardized within the system. Then perhaps we can turn out standardized students.
Just think, standardized students, in standardized schools being taught by standardized teachers to take standardized tests to prepare them for a standardized world.
What a wonderful world it would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)