Teaching History

Chad Farnan, a student in Capistrano Valley High School has sued his history teacher, James Corbett, alleging that Corbett has made anti-religion remarks in his Advanced Placement European History class this semester.

Students and alumni rallied outside their school Wednesday to show support for the embattled teacher. They say that Corbett encourages thinking in his classes; that he encourages discussions in an intelligent way.

I have taught history at both college and grammar school levels. I know how difficult it is to make history intellectually challenging, as opposed to a mere litany of dates and events. All I know about Mr. Corbett's class is what I read in the newspapers, but I can tell from the support he has received that he is one of those teachers who knows how to breath life and spirit into the subject.

When he ignites the fire of critical discussion, however, he runs the risk of it burning out of control. This is not a matter of "political correctness," or simply using prescribed language. Rather, it is one of exposing the strengths and weaknesses of various viewpoints without endorsing or condemning them. It is important to point out that a person's own baggage--religious, educational, or experiential--may some times prevent him from seeing an event or a decision with total objectivity.

One danger is that it is all too easy for the teacher to inject his own bias into the discussion. When he does, his position of authority gives the weight of fact to his personal opinions. A second danger, especially with younger students, is that the teacher's attempt to inject a contrary view into the discussion may be misinterpreted as an endorsement of that position. In either case objectivity is lost, and a fire of emotions flares up.

Either or both of those things may have happened in Mr. Corbett's class. Without hearing the actual discussion, we cannot be sure. It seems to me, though, that either a clarification of the misunderstanding or an apology for 'crossing the line' should suffice. It should be a matter that can be resolved between the teacher and his student, if both are objective and open-minded.

A lawsuit or other form of punishment only deprives us of a dynamic teacher who has found the way to get his students deeply involved in critical analysis of history. We can't afford to lose that.

President Bush Lied to Us

In the past, when someone put this statement on the table, I responded, "Prove it." The story was that President Bush convinced Congress to authorize military action in Iraq based on intelligence reports that the Bush Administration had edited in such a way as to indicate that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. I agreed that the intelligence reports were inaccurate and misleading, but nobody ever showed me concrete evidence that Pres. Bush or Vice Pres. Cheney had been personally involved in the alteration of the reports.

As of today, I have still not seen the evidence, but I am convinced that President Bush has lied to us. In fact, I see the President as being both shrewd and crafty, and capable of lying to the nation to promote his own agenda to the detriment of national security.

The proof is on his desk, in the form of an omnibus spending measure that he is about to sign.

Last year, President Bush signed an act that authorized the building of a fence along our southern border, along with other measures to prevent aliens from entering the country illegally. He announced the action with great fanfare, assuring us that he wanted to ensure the security of our sovereign state.

But the 3,500 pages omnibus spending act that he is about to sign contains a few paragraphs, written by one of his Texas political hacks, that not only reduce the funding for the fence, but cripple the building process with a nightmare of departmental, state and local approval requirements. The Democratic authors of the welcomed these neatly hidden restrictions, and the rest of Congress had only a few hours to read the bill, let alone find the wording and propose changes.

President Bush lied to us about the building of the border fence, and has ignored his oath to ensure the security of our country. And I now believe that he lied to promote his agenda in Iraq. Because of his diversion into Iraq, Afghanistan is still a dope-ridden mess, Bin Laden remains uncaptured, and both the Taliban and Al-qaida are rebuilding their strength. Now his second big lie leaves us open to thousands of illegal aliens entering our country and draining our resources for the benefit of his wealthy supporters.

Some folks say Bush is the dumbest president in the history of our nation, but he is not. He is shrewd, crafty, and also beholden to the Texas oil and agribusiness interests, and he makes no apology for it. If not the dumbest, he is nearly the worst president we have had, vying for the bottom slot with Presidents Harding and Buchanan with his deceit and the damage he has done. I only hope his successor has the wisdom and the strength to rebuild our national security and our confidence in the Presidency.

God and Country

Two letters appeared recently in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I have reproduced them below. The second comes from a lifelong friend of mine, and it makes a lot of sense.

• Letter #1--Regarding the Nov. 8 letters "Government and religion shouldn't mix": This is a Christian nation! So stated the Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, on Feb. 29, 1892. In fact, in 1787, during the rancorous debates over a national Constitution, Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues of God's help and intervention during the Revolutionary War. He initiated daily prayer to ask for God's assistance and blessings in their deliberations.
  The Founding Fathers were Christians, who believed and read the Bible, and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. (Yes, a few were Deists.) George Washington took the oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, ending with the statement, "I swear, so help me God."
  Good government requires Christianity: Do good. Do justly. Help your neighbor. Obey the law. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, don't take a bribe). Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
  Wouldn't you like our government officials to follow these precepts? For more information on America's Christian heritage, see americanvision.org. RON MASEK, Strongsville
• Letter #2--In Sunday's Letters was this statement, "Good government requires Christianity. Do good. Do justly. Help your neighbor. Obey the law. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, don't take a bribe). Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Christianity does not have an exclusive patent on these ideals. Christianity does not own a monopoly.
  I have lived my life trying to follow ideals like these, not because a higher power has told me to, or because I'm threatened with eternal punishment if I don't follow them, but because it is the moral and ethical way to live and treat others. It is the right thing to do - the right way to live. That is just as true for non-Christians and non-believers.
  Ethical, moral, just and compassionate living does not require a religion to teach those qualities to humankind. They are qualities that should be practiced just because we are human and we live with other humans. The notion that religion is the only way to teach those morals is wrong. BRUCE FRUMKER, Cleveland Heights

I agree with Bruce that we need not embrace a specific religion in order to practice ‘ethical, moral, just and compassionate living.’ In fact, many of the Christians we have elected to offices in Washington DC today seem to be doing exactly the opposite.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the US is, or should be, a Christian nation. The Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion as the state religion. Furthermore, we could never agree on which brands of Christianity are acceptable.

But each of us must have the necessary imperative and discipline to teach morality, ethics, and compassion to our offspring. Organized religions provide a structure that enables and enhances that teaching mission—they are not necessary to the running of the government, but rather they help citizens to raise the type of people we need for future leaders.

I strongly oppose those people who would remove references to God from our pledge, our currency, our national documents, or our monuments. They go much too far. I do not find Allah, or Buddha, or another diety to be offensive. Nor should atheists or people of other religions, if they are intelligent, rational, and sane, find God to be offensive. I have never believed that the Government insists that I worship God. Instead, the Government acknowledges that our founders and leaders were and are inspired and guided by their God and His principles. And that's the way it should be.

No End in Sight

According to Fox News, in SYDNEY, Australia, the recruitment firm Westaff, which supplies hundreds of Santas across the country — has told its trainees that the "ho ho ho" phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women.

Two Santa hopefuls reportedly quit the course because the of "ho, ho, ho" is being discouraged. One would-be Santa told The Daily Telegraph he was taught not to use "ho, ho, ho" because it was too close to the American slang for prostitute. He also quit.

Westaff's national Santa co-ordinator, Sari Hegarty, wrote to stores explaining the company's position: "Westaff has been a provider of quality caring Santas for over 40 years...Part of our advice to our Santas is that they should be mindful of children having their first Santa experience," she added. "We ask our Santas to try techniques such as lowering their tone of voice and using 'ha, ha, ha' to encourage the children to come forward and meet Santa. We wish you and your family a very merry Christmas."

Westaff national operations manager Greg Jansz said it was "misleading" to say the company had banned Santa's traditional greeting and it was being left up to the discretion of Santa himself.

Well, there is another company where a couple of "political correctness" idiots have gone off the deep end. The Sari Hegartys of the world need both smarter brains and a serious attitude adjustment.

The simple fact is that nearly nobody, adult or child, would be both stupid enough and hypersensitive enough to be offended by Santa's "ho ho ho." It might make sense, though, to coach the Santas not to over-emote the line.

I am deeply offended by the repeated attacks by politically correct idiots on the customs of our society. But it seems that what offends me does not matter to the p.c. crowd. Only their petty grievances matter. It's long past time that we stop acting like we are walking on eggshells because of misplaced fear of a handful of hypersensitive, vindictive idiots. If we don't, then we won't be able to name our teddy bear Mohammed, or wish someone a Merry Christmas any more. We should just tell the crackpots to shut up, go home, and learn how to cope with situations that are less than ideal.

Aren't there some really serious injustices in the world that we should be using our energy to eliminate?

My Pseudonym

Someone told me that the pseudonym for a porn star is made by combining the name of his first pet with the name of the first street he lived on. My first pet was a dog we called Poochie. We lived on Williamson Road. I am definitely NOT a porn star, but I really like the name.

What's Wrong with Airport Security?

This cartoon by Mike Keefe in the Denver Post says it all. Whether it's nail clippers, a bottle of baby formula, or a sewing kit, airport security agents have diligently and repeatedly located and confiscated harmless items from 80 year-old women and 4 year-old children.

Maybe you feel safer in the presence of this arbitrary and mindless knee-jerk approach to security, but I am just plain annoyed. I have no objection to taking my shoes off and putting them on the conveyor belt. Based on recent history, that's a perfectly reasonable request. But it took them far too long to drop the nail clipper thing. The only folks who resent the intrusion of mindless security more than the bad guys do are the good guys!

Effective security concentrates on persons and items that, as a result of a preliminary screening, are determined to be most likely to cause severe damage. That's called profiling. Profiling can be done in a positive sense (to quickly pass low-risk passengers) as well as the more recognized sense (to single out high-risk passengers for closer scrutiny). But the criteria must be kept strictly confidential in order to retain their validity. With this approach, a few innocents who fail the initial screening will be inconvenienced, but that's better than spoiling travel for all the rest of us. If you are absolutely compelled to look like a duck and quack like a duck, then expect to be treated like a duck. That's the breaks; grin and bear it. Eventually your record of good behavior will put you in the low risk category.

>

There is no room for "political correctness" in the area of security.

Tips for Presidential Candidates

The pundits are saying that the independent voters will determine the outcome of the next U.S. Presidential election. I tend to agree with them. Although I am registered as a Republican, I have always voted based on the issues and on my conscience, not on party affiliation; I consider myself an independent.

So, Hillary and Rudy, Barak and Mitt, John McC and John E, (and all the rest), please listen to the voice of an independent:

1. Don't tell me how terrible things are in our nation. Tell me instead which of the good things you intend to preserve and enhance. You can tell me if something can be improved, if something is broken and needs fixing, or if something is missing and needs to be added, but be prepared to offer a specific remedy.
2. Stop proposing policies that favor the multimillionares who fund your campaigns to the detriment of the other 99% of our population. Make your proposals and your actions truly serve the common good.
3. Ignore the rantings of the blind dummies at the far right and the far left ends of the political spectrum. They probably account for about 5% of the total vote. There are many more voters toward the middle of the spectrum. They are the intelligent, thoughtful and curious ones who are examining all possible solutions to the problems and who are looking for intelligent problem solvers. They are also the ones who will see the benefits of your proposed solutions and embrace them regardless of the party of origin.
4. Make sure you address the important issues. Some candidates don't even have illegal immigration on their issues list. There are other missing issues as well. If you can't see what the important issues are, you aren't presidential material.
5. Don't change your position with every new poll that is published. If you truly believe you are right, hold fast to your position. On the other hand, if one or more polls indicate that 75% or more of the electorate disagree with you, then you should seriously reexamine your position, because they may have seen something you missed. If you are certain you are right, then you had better explain the facts that got you there.
6. Don't patronize me or try to dazzle me with promises of pie in the sky, two cars in every garage, or a chicken in every pot. These offers have already been made and renigued upon. Instead, be specific about the improvements or additions you want to make, and make them realistic in the sense that Congress will be able to implement them.
7. Don't offer me "comprehensive" reforms. These have failed every time they were implemented or attempted (e.g. health care, immigration, congressional ethics, campaign financing). Comprehensive reforms are so long and complicated that they are guaranteed to have one or more elements that will alienate voters of one persuasion or the other. As a result, few voters will support them. Most of our present policies are pretty darn good. They have specific faults that need correcting, or they are not always properly enforced. So identify the specific faults, and propose specific corrective and enforcement actions.
8. Don't be afraid that I will not vote for you if I disagree on an issue--that's exactly what elections are all about. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If you make more good suggestions than bad, and more good solutions than the other guy, you will get my vote.
9. Quit using ad hominum attacks. They have been around as long as politicians have. And they are weak and antagonistic substitutes for substantive positive positions on meaningful issues. Besides, you have just as many failings as the other guy does.

That is a recipe for winning the votes of independents. I suspect and fear that you will not follow it. No presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt has come very close to following it. Some of you have already begun your "avoid the issues and torpedo the opposition" campaign strategy. Change now, or lose my vote for sure (and those of most other independents as well).

Class in American Society

Republicans are criticizing Democrats for attempting to define economic "classes" in American society.

The Republicans are dead wrong in their criticism. American society comprises two classes: The extremely wealthy, and the rest of the working families. These classes are not defined by the Democratic Party. They are defined by the words and actions of the wealthy elite.

Here is how they define and create their exclusive social class:

• They isolate themselves from the hoipolloi by living in gated estates or gated communities
• They avoid the use of public transportation. They use private limousines instead of buses or trains; private yachts, or first-class accommodations on cruise ships; private jets in place of commercial airlines
• They have assistants do their shopping for them, and if they do shop for personal items, they have the shop owner close the shop to other customers while they are there
• They guard their income and their sources of income from taxation by receiving funds out of the country and storing their funds in offshore accounts
• They either are our nation's lawmakers, or they influence the lawmakers by means of contributions and personal favors. For example, the Federal tax code is full of special provisions for the wealthy--treating capital gains at a lower rate than other income, allowing adjustments credits and deductions applicable only to people of wealth

The wealthy elite have defined their own class, and you and I are not part of it. Just about anyone can knock on your front door and speak to you, face to face. That's not true for the wealthy elite.

Another Tax Proposal

Don't laugh too hard--it just might work, if the proposal is indeed revenue-neutral. Some specific provisions are essential:

• The $100,000.00 figure should be tied to an inflation index to protect upper-middle-income folks from drifting into the higher category.


• A more gradual transition to the upper bracket may be needed so that, for a person earning $98,000.00, a 4% raise does not give him a big cut in take-home pay.
  
• "Income" must be defined as gross, from all sources and activities; no "adjustments," no "allowances," no deductions, no loopholes.

Like any proposal, this one has its benefits and drawbacks. Readers can identify those and sort them out. In general, though, it is a promising attempt to spread the tax burden more fairly.

Rep. Rangel's Tax Proposal

I read an article about Rep. Charles Rangel's recent tax proposal in the Business Section of the L.A. Times for October 26. Some of my Republican friends may brand me a heretic when I say that his proposal is worth serious consideration. The ones who know me really well may understand why, though, and those who don't can read my posting on taxes (9/14/2007) and my posting on income inequality (6/24/2007) to sample some of my ideas on the subject. Like Rep. Rangel I firmly believe that we need to restore fairness to the tax code. I also think the plan needs some refinements.

If I can believe the Congressman and the article, the Rangel plan is revenue neutral, that is, the proposed tax increases in some areas would be offset by decreases in others. The right wing critics complain about the increases but do not mention the offsetting decreases. If you read my posting on income equality, you will see that I do not oppose shifting some of the tax burden to the extremely wealthy people.

When we talk about tax reforms for fairness, however, we need to be very clear on how the income is defined. That is, are we talking about gross income, or adjusted gross income, or taxable income? Both the second category and the last take into account adjustments and deductions that allow wealthy taxpayers to duck their fair share.

Another concern in Rep. Rangel's proposal is whom we define to be weathy. According to the Times article, less than 2 million taxpayers would see a tax increase under the plan, predominantly those who earn more than half a million dollars per year. Half a million is the number I would have picked, if it is considered to be gross income. But the Rangel plan imposes a 4% surcharge on households that earn at least $200,000.00 for couples filing jointly. That seems to dip well below the half million earned dollars per taxpayer mentioned in the article. Whatever number is chosen, it should be indexed in some way to inflation.

The plan increases the standard deduction, increases the Earned Income Tax credit for the working poor, and increases the refundable child tax credit. These changes clearly benefit wage earners who are not considered to be wealthy.

The plan proposes to cut the top tax rate for corporate income from 35% to 30.5%. This feature should diminish the concerns that the plan will cause job losses and other adverse economic impacts. The plan also eliminates current provisions that Rangel considers to be loopholes. I don't know which ones they are, but I am sure that there are some loopholes worth closing. The problem I see is that any increase in the taxes for businesses will be passed on to wage earners in the form of higher prices and/or work force reductions. That does not hold in the case of individual income--an increase in the top tax rate for wealthy individuals is worth considering.

The plan proposes eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax. The fact that the income level at which the A.M.T. kicks in is too low and is not being adjusted for inflation makes me agree with this aspect of the plan. But the A.M.T. should only be eliminated if we also eliminate the loopholes and adjustments that allow members of the half-a-million-dollar-plus club to claim zero or minimal taxable income.

The plan increases taxes for managers of private-equity funds, who have been claiming their earnings at the 15% capital gains rate. This change is long overdue.

For many of the people in the half-a-million-dollar-plus club, wages did not comprise the majority of their income, and they did not pay at or near the top bracket rate of 35%. That's because of the myriad of provisions that create loopholes by allowing adjustments, deductions, and the re-categorizing of income. Serious consideration should be given to eliminating some of those provisions. I don't expect much help from Congress in this direction, as many of our legislators are members of the half-a-million-dollar-plus club, and they won't vote against their own personal interest.

Some people are terrified at the thought of a flat tax based on total income, above some defined poverty level, from all sources. If we could ensure that ALL income would be reported, the actual rate of that tax would lower than most people fear. But if we are unwilling to take the flat tax leap, then Representative Rangel's plan (with some fine tuning) deserves some serious consideration.

Ephemeral Culture

More and more people are downloading music in the form of MP3 files instead of purchasing CDs. All around us we see the demise of local record shops big and small. Some very important things are lost when CDs are replaced by MP3 downloads: sound quality, the artistic expressions of many great historic performers, and a tangible, durable storage medium.

Those who appreciate fine music are not satisfied to download "a song," play it a few times until they are tired of it, then discard it. Rather, they search out the best performance(s) of a symphony or a string quartet. They listen to it over and over to experience the nuances of emotion conveyed by the performer. They may put the recording aside for months, or even years, and then re-visit it for a renewed experience. They share it with friends. They hope that the sublime listening moments will be preserved for the enjoyment of future music lovers. The MP3 downloads are limited to recent performances, have reduced sound quality, and can disappear with the stroke of a key, or a power surge.

But only 3% of the population is sufficiently discriminating to pay the necessary cost of these treasures. Because our public schools are failing miserably to communicate the stronger cultural and aesthetic values, I worry that the size of this elite group will diminish.

To be financially sound, orchestras and recording companies must market to the other 97%--people who value things that are “good enough” for them: low cost, sound quality that is adequate for the low-cost playback machines, performances by people whose names they recognize, and the “instant gratification” that speedy delivery provides.

Fortunately, CDs were the medium of choice for several years before MP3 downloads became available. A greater variety and depth of music has been transferred to CD than was ever available on long playing records or magnetic tape. Some of the non-classical items in my collection demonstrate the scope: Sea shanties, Scottish pipes, Portuguese fados, the jazz recordings of Bix Beiderbecke. The rarities are hard to find, and they may have to be shipped across the country, but to those who appreciate them, they are worth the wait. They will probably never be available for download, because almost nobody is interested in them.

Some few entrepreneurs will pursue the 3% niche market, and continue to make CDs available. They will offer their products on the internet because they reach more potential customers than dozens of record shops, and they require only one inventory site. I really miss the opportunity to browse the bins of my local record store for historic recordings. But the inventory of the local record stores only touched the surface of the tremendous variety available. By searching the on-line sites, I can learn of their existence, locate them, and acquire them. I periodically check about 15 different sites for new releases, many of which are on small independent labels.

Much of the new technology does tend to isolate people. The philatelist who used to meet a few times a year with fellow collectors to buy, sell, and trade both stamps and information about them now seems content to sit in front of a keyboard and a monitor exchanging key strokes with other machines out there. The listener who downloads MP3s misses the opportunity to share opinions with fellow music lovers in the local record shop. We have even devised anwering machine 'trees' so that the telephone becomes an isolation machine instead of a means of talking with people. We are engaged in a struggle to make our machines work for us rather than letting them make us work for them. When we succeed, we are rewarded with great bounty. If we give in to the machines, the trend could make intellectual dummies and social cripples of us all.

Vivaldi Released

I just purchased a recent cd release of Vivaldi violin concertos, performed by Giuliano Carmignola violinist with Andrea Marcon and the Venice Baroque Orchestra. If you enjoy Vivaldi, and are tired of The Four Seasons, you should give this one a try. Carmignola's violin is passionate and fiery. The five concertos have not been recorded before. This premiere is wonderful listening.

Ironically it was his recording on Sony of The Four Seasons that introduced me to Carmignola. His approach to those over-recorded concertos is fresh and vigorous. Marcon and the Venice Baroque orchestra play with obvious love and enthusiasm for the music. Carmignola released two subsequent discs for Sony containing previously unrecorded Vivaldi concertos. All of them are wonderful listening.

In case you want to check it out, this recent release is on DGG Archive, B0006504-02.

Another Site for Classical CDs

I just added Universal Classics to the list of recorded music sites in the box at the right. This page has links to catalogs of Philips, Decca, and DGG compact discs.

Blog Anniversary

I planned to do this post last Tuesday.

Tuesday, September 11, 2008, was the sixth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. It was also the first anniversary of the my first blog posting. In the last year, some things that I discussed have improved, and some have not.

• Thanks to the idiots in the executive and legislative branches of our government, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be American political issues, as opposed to military issues, or parts of the campaign against terrorism. One group of politicians stubbornly refuses to acknowledge its errors, another group continues to be more concerned about their own political ambitions than about the safety of either Iraq or the U.S. They are just too self-centered and they have too much power and too little knowledge or intelligence to do the right things.
• Hatred and ad hominum attacks continue to pervade the American political scene, as opposed to sensible, concrete proposals to improve our society. The voters are still voting for the smile and the charisma of ignorant and crooked candidates instead of supporting people who show exceptional knowledge of the problems to be solved. Politicians who are not intelligent enough to propose a better solution than their opponents investigate and denigrate them instead.
• The politicians talk about compromise, cooperation, and eliminating corruption. But their actions are exactly the opposite of their rhetoric.
• We have seen little progress toward securing our borders to eliminate illegal immigration while establishing a sensible program for importing temporary labor. This continues to be a political issue, as opposed to a social problem. Politicians sense that no one comes away from a compromise completely happy. They fear losing votes and financial support resulting from a solution more than they dislike the damage resulting from the status quo.
• "Political correctness" continues to poison our literature, our entertainment, and even our daily actions. People just do not understand that by eliminating or changing a word or other symbol we cannot abolish either a concept or a past event. But they find it easier to "erase" the symbol than to teach people the proper understanding of the concept or the perspective of the event. When you erase the symbol, the concept still exists--it just becomes represented by another symbol. The hard solution is the right one, but we remain too lazy to work it.

But it's not all bad--I just lament the lack of progress on some of my most vexing issues. Bonnie says that I am too cynical, and that I should look on the bright side and talk about happier stuff. So I will do that.

• In spite of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and the housing boom and bust, the nation's economy is fairly robust and unemployment is relatively low.
• From I-phones to HDTV to X-boxes, we have more technological advances and high--tech toys than our grandfathers ever dreamed of. I don't use many myself, but many people are enjoying them.
• My personal life continues to be as positive and rewarding as I can make it. I made significant progress on the plans for a convention of the American Political Items Collectors in Las Vegas in August, 2008. And, my own campaign collection has seen modest gains.
• Despite the demise of Tower Records, I have added some excellent classical CDs to my collection, giving me many hours of listening enjoyment.
• My renewed interest in the ukulele has brought me some pleasure, probably not as much for Bonnie. I added about a dozen songs to my repertoire.
• My part-time teaching job has enabled me to enrich the knowledge and values of hundreds of young children. And it has added some really fine acquaintances to my network.
• Although we blew right through our initial budget, Bonnie and I are pleased with the results so far in the redecoration of our living room and dining room. We are about 80% done, and we like it every bit as much as we hoped to.
• Bonnie and I and the two shar peis are all enjoying reasonably good health. We have begun to adjust to a more healthy diet, and have shed more than a few excess pounds.
• Thanks to the computer and the internet I have been able to maintain contact with many long-term friends, and to make some valuable additions to that network. We mostly swap humorous emails, but we also exchange ideas and information.
• Bonnie and I are fortunate to live close to both of our daughters and their husbands. To see their happiness and success is a source of joy to us.

So, I continue to make the most of the things that I can control. And for those things beyond my control, I will use the blog as my soap box. Maybe in a small way I can encourage somebody to take some steps in the right direction. Besides my own visits, the blog has experienced well over a thousand hits. It must be very boring, or a lot of readers share my views, because I have only received a couple of comments against over 100 postings.

Taxes

Someone once said that the essence of a communist philosophy is that people should contribute to the society according to their ability, and derive from society according to their need. To capitalist, that is the wildest form of heresy; rather, one should derive in proportion to his ability.

Several presidential candidates in the Democratic party have been criticized for proposing tax increases in order to increase existing welfare programs and to add new ones. They claim that they only want to tax the wealthy, but many of the folks they call wealthy don't have much more to contribute. Candidates in the Republican party claim tax cuts for the wealthy increase revenue and improve the economy, but many of the extremely wealthy are performing artists, athletes, and politicians who neither develop nor produce new products nor do they hire large numbers of employees.

Part of the conflict is that while the term "wealth" is relatively easy to define, the term "need" is a little more ambiguous. For example, as a person's wealth increases, so does his "need." Most of us can get along just fine owning one house; many feel the need for a second "summer home;" and the very wealthy "need" to maintain several homes. The need for cars, TV sets, and many other items also grows as a person's wealth increases. I can get along fine with 2 or 3 business suits in my closet, but a wealthy man "needs" two dozen suits. A two thousand square foot house is adequate for most folks to live in, but when you are wealthy, you "need" a 20,000 square foot house on 10 acres of land. The wealthy few "need" all of these things that the other 99% of us consider to be pure excess. They cling to their excesses, and will not cut back on them to help the poor.

For even the poorest people, "need" has increased significantly. People who can barely afford food for the table have satellite dishes on their rooftops, tied to multiple TV sets. They are behind on their mortgage and utility bills, but their children have cell phones and wear designer shoes to school. And the politicians tell us that EVERYONE needs access to a computer.

Most of the people who draft our tax laws are wealthy. They are members of that elite 1 or 2 percent of our population whose annual income exceeds $500,000.00. While they claim to increase taxes for the "wealthy," they actually want to raise the taxes of folks whose annual income is in the $50,000.00 to $499,000.00 range. Their rationale is that the "over $500,000.00 club" are already paying more than their "fair share."

But in reality, 99% of us would really feel the pinch if our income tax increased by, say, $2,000.00 next year. But do you think for a minute that an executive, an athlete, or an actor who earns $3 million dollars next year would have to endure hardship to deal with an increase of even one hundred times that much?

Some people will argue that many of the wealthy are indeed generous--they build schools for the underprivileged, they donate computers to the public schools, etc., etc. That is true, but their is a big difference between what they do and what they want us to do. You see, they determine not only how much they will give, but when and to whom they will give it. They know that their money will be better spent if they donate directly to the cause than it would if they gave it to the government to spend. And, if they want to buy a new private jet this year, they will skip the donation.

The rich don't want you to have those choices. You will be forced under penalty of law to donate an amount they determine to the government every year. The people who set the policies and the people who write our tax laws are mostly members of that wealthiest 1%. They don't want to forego their third house or their fifth automobile, so they will increase the taxes of the people in the upper middle income range. This also serves as a barrier to keep others from joining their ranks and competing for the luxuries.

It's not an organized conspiracy; they wealthy just think that way. The extremely wealthy are the "royalty" in an otherwise democratic society. They exempt themselves from the very requirements they place on the commoners. They agree with each other, and they write the laws. You see, it's a really good deal for over half of the voters who get the handouts but not the tax increases. That's why the rich guys keep getting re-elected. They "buy" their votes with entitlements that are funded by our tax money, not their own. The result is forced charity. Think about that before you select the next candidate to get your vote.

Airlines: Overbooking and Bumping

A recent opinion piece in the Orange County Register attempted to justify the policy of most airlines to overbook flights, then bump some passengers to a later flight.

I almost never travel by air anymore because the reductions in service and the added security measures have eliminated what little enjoyment used to be associated with the experience.

The writer of the opinion piece bases his position on the following arguments:

1. Only about 1.45 of every 10,000 passengers get bumped.
2. People who make last minute reservations are actually more likely to get a seat. Without the overbooking policy, they would not have the opportunity to get a seat reserved by a "no-show."
3. The overbooking policy permits more planes to fly at full capacity, so all flyers benefit from the lower fare per seat.

On the surface the article seems to make sense, but I am concerned about those 1.45 passengers who get stiffed. The author gives us no data about the percentage of seats that are "no-show," or about how many last-minute flyers benefit from getting those seats. If those who benefit amount to 30 or even 3 per 10,000, it may "offset" the inconvenience for the 1.45 who are bumped.

The lack of data on the number of no-shows also gives us no insight into the financial benefit for the 9,998.55 passengers who get seats. If, on those flights, there are only 500 no-shows, the per ticket savings on fares may be around $5.00. So the 9,998.55 passengers are $5.00 per person happier at the expense of those 1.45 people who are grievously inconvenienced.

In the absence of more data, it appears to be another business decision that benefits the airline company by dumping on some of its customers.

Redecoration, Part 4

Well, the painting is finished. It involved 4 colors: a medium gold ("Blonde") for the walls in the living room and dining room, a light gold (Ivoire) for the ceilings and for the entry and the hall, a dark brown for the built in cabinets in the living room, and a white (Atrium White) for the baseboards, doors, and crown moldings.

We learned a lot about the effects of different kinds of light on the perceived color. Window light and incandescent lamp light make a single pigment appear two be two different colors. During the day, the light from the living room windows makes the walls look lighter than the dining room walls, but at night, they look more nearly the same. Although the walls and the ceiling of the entry way are the same color (Ivoire), the ceiling looks darker than the walls, which get more light. Although the hall is the same color (Ivoire) as the ceilings and the entry way, it looks much darker--almost the same as the (Blonde) walls in the dining room. Even within the dining room, two of the walls appear to be a darker gold than the other two. The lesson is that it is impossible to select colors based on small paint chips in a store. You need to get large samples, bring them home, and hold them to the walls in all of the areas you plan to paint. Better yet is to buy a quart of the paint you think will work, and paint 2'x 2' squares on every surface that you plan to paint. Even after we did that, the results were sometimes surprising, but, I might add, very pleasing.

I did the last of the painting Thursday, well behind my original plan. The delay had no effect on the overall schedule, however, as we are awaiting delivery of a ceiling medallion for the dining room. When that arrives, the carpenters can install it and the decorative overlays for the cabinets and mantel in the living room. And the electrician can install both the chandelier in the dining room and the rope lighting inside the crown molding in the dining room and the hall.

The job has not been problem-free. The pocket door from the kitchen into the hall came off its track. Repair would entail cutting a large section of dry wall out of the hall, and could cost from $300 to $800, depending on what we find is wrong. We decided just to leave it open for now. The painters accidentally knocked over a 7-foot etagere in the living room, and shattered the glass mirror backing. They will get it fixed for us, but that is going to take a while.

I have already installed new ceiling lights in the hall and the entryway. And the dining room table arrived Thursday afternoon. It is our first large piece of new furniture, and we both love it.

Since the entry way is complete, we plan to replace the decorative accessories we had in there today.

So it is pretty much downhill from here. We still need revised estimates on drapes for the living room and dining room (the first plan was just too expensive). We are waiting for the rest of the furniture to arrive. The rest is just accessories (lamps, paintings/prints, etc.).

We are still trying to hold the total cost to just about twice our original budget. The main reason is that reproductions of Victorian furniture are very expensive. Because they are typically very ornate, most of them are hand-made, often in North Carolina. The quality of the woods, the finishes and the decorative inlays also drive the cost up. But we believe the enjoyment we get from the Victorian look will be worth the expense. You can be sure, though, that the results will not be described as "contemporary," "clean lines," or other euphemisms for modern bland.

When the job is completed, I will post some pictures to the blog.

Redecoration, Part 3

Despite a suggestion from the drywall and molding contractor that the painters may prefer to do the ceilings and moldings before I paint the walls, I started to prepare the walls for painting this week. The painters will not be able to start until some decorateive overlays for our cabinets arrive. We hate to see so much time pass without some signs of progress.

So I spent Tuesday and today removing a decorative border from the living room and spackling the nail holes and other dings in the walls. Tomorrow I plan to sand the spackled areas and paint the living room and dining room walls. If all goes well I will paint the entry and hall walls on Friday. I also need to put some primer on the new door for the dining room.

It sure seems like a lot of work. I'm glad I did not try to do it all myself. With a little luck, we should be able to start moving the new furniture in the week after next. The biggest jobs after that are draperies and accessories. Bonnie and I are anxious to see the results.

Simpsonized

Yes, I have been Simpsonized. I wondered what I would look like if I lived in Springfield, so I went to the web site via a link from the Simpsons movie web site. At this site, you upload a head shot, and it is morphed into a Simpson character. If you don't like their choices for some features, they let you select from a large variety of replacements. You may want to give it a try: http://simpsonizeme.com/#

The images are in .png format, but I cropped mine, and converted them to .jpg format.

They even let you place yourself in a typical Springfield background. Since they gave me a hammer, I put myself in the kitchen, ready to start some repairs.

The Simpsons movie page lets you create a Simpsons avatar to tour springfield with Homer, but no photo is involved; you select your own characteristics from a limited set.

I have to go; those repairs need to be attended to.

Redecoration, part 2

The base boards, door casings, and crown moldings were installed Saturday. They really look great! There was one base board by the front door that did not look right to us. A man will be out this afternoon to fix it.

In order to put the lighted crown molding in the hall, they had to lower the top of the arch that leads to the family room. Lowering the top also allows us to replace the door casing around the arch, for which there was not room before. The change left a 6-inch piece of molding between one side of the arch and the ceiling that I did not care for, and of course, the new section needed painting. I removed the molding and painted the wall Monday. Now it looks like it was always that way, except of course for the new casing.

Next the painters will come to caulk all of the cracks and nail holes in the woodwork, and paint the woodwork and the ceilings. But they have to wait until we receive some ovelays for the living room cabinet doors and a medallion for the dining room ceiling. So things will be messy until well into August.

Now that work has started, we feel more anxious to finish the job

Redecoration, Part 1

Bonnie and I decided that our big project of the year would be to redecorate our living room and dining room. Although the two rooms are coordinated in terms of color, the dining room is sort of modern (if you call 1980's modern) and the living room is sort of traditional, except for the sofa. Although they are pleasant enough, they have always seemed a little cold, formal, and uninviting. We want to tie the two together in a Victorian style with darker woods and warmer colors.

Bonnie found a decorator, and we have been selecting fabrics, furniture, paints, and accessories for a few months now. We will replace all of the door casings, the baseboards in all of the areas, and the crown molding in the dining room. The new crown molding will be lower, and will have an embedded 'light rope' to provide indirect lighting. The chandelier in the dining room will also be replaced. And there will be new window treatments.

We have selected most of the furniture--a custom sofa, 2 club chairs, a coffee table, and 3 lamp tables for the living room, and a new dining table and custom chairs for the dining room. All have been ordered, and the coffee table and lamp tables have arrived already. We stuffed them into our 2 extra bedrooms.

The project really got underway last Sunday, July 15, when we cleared all of the furniture and accessories out of both rooms. We also cleaned out the entry way and the connecting hallway. The project extended into the two halls because we decided to remove the acoustic 'popcorn' from the ceilings. Now we have decided to add some indirect lighting to the hall as well. With the added tasks and the unexpectedly high cost of the furniture we selected, the project is already about 100% over the originally planned cost, even though we ditched our plan to put a raised tin ceiling in the dining room.

Disposing of the old furniture has been somewhat problematic. Everything has that dated " '80's look." The lamp tables are a lighter wood that is out of vogue these days, as are the wing back chairs--the local consignment shops would have nothing to do with them. We sold the travertine dining room table on eBay. When the guys came to pick it up, we started to lift the top off the pedestal, and the top cracked across the center into two pieces. After we all recovered from the shock, the buyer agreed to take the table and we agreed to accept 1/2 of the sale price. Nobody was very happy at that point, but at least the table was gone. Bonnie found a friend at work who took the sofa and the dining room chairs.

On Monday the 16th the dry wall crew arrived. They scraped the ceilings and removed most of the existing base boards, door casings, and crown moldings in the 2 rooms, the entryway and the hall. An electrician wired the power and switches for the indirect lighting in the dining room and the hall. And a lady arrived to measure the windows for drapes.

Tuesday and Wednesday were pretty much 'off days,' except that on Tuesday the material for the new base boards and moldings arrived. The door casing material was not the pattern we wanted. So they had to take it back and get the molding that matches the door frames in the family room.

Today, Thursday the 18th, the dry wall crew is back. They will re-surface all of the ceilings.

Saturday will be molding day. On Friday, I plan to paint just the top one foot or so of the halls in the dining room and hall in preparation for the crown molding. Then I get to paint all of the walls next week. We will have a professional painter do the ceilings and the trim.

When it's all done I will take and post some pictures. I regret that I did not take some "before" pictures. Maybe I can find some in the archives.

The Arrogance of Power

Power begets arrogance. Republican or Democrat, President Bush or Senator Kennedy--it matters not. Once elected to public office, some people believe they are BETTER than the people who elected them. The believe themselves to be smarter, better informed, and more deserving of special treatment and benefits. I know I am not the only person who sees this arrogance. A letter from Larry Lipson of Orange, California, to the editor of the Orange County Register is a perfect example:

"I feel my senators' pain, and they will feel my vote

"I fully empathize with the frustrations expressed by numer­ous senators, such as Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein, as they complain that President George W. Bush ignores their constant pleading to start withdrawing troops from Iraq. The president ignores them and does what he wants to do.

"I feel my senators' pain because it is the same pain that I experienced after sending many letters and e-mails to my senators pleading for them not to pass the amnesty bill that they seemed so bound and de­termined to pass.

"The responses that I received said that I did not 'understand' the real­ities of the situation (being the unin­formed citizen-voter that they be­lieve I am) and only they, the omnip­otent senators; know what should be done for the good of the country.

"Talk-radio rallied millions of citi­zens to action. The senators' e-mail system was overwhelmed and the Senate's phone system crashed un­der the load of citizen-voter calls. The Senate's response to this citizen pressure was first to kill the amnes­ty bill (they whined and complained about the stupid citizens interfering with what the senators wanted to do, but killed the bill, anyway). Sec­ond, the Senate attempted to pass a bill to return the "fairness doctrine" to throttle talk-radio broadcasting, hoping to prevent a re-run of this type of illumination of the self-exalt­ed (and obviously none of my busi­ness) Senate deliberation process and to prevent a re-run of citizen in­volvement in the federal lawmaking process.

"My plan to ameliorate the pain of my arrogant, omnipotent senators is to vote the straight 'non-incumbent' ticket in the next election. It is time for citizen-voters to take this coun­try back."

Larry's plan will not work, first, because a significant number of voters will not do as he does; second, because if enough voters did that, they would be removing the good guys along with the bad. It sure would be refreshing if voters in general perceived this arrogance and voted against it in future elections. We should vote for people who support our positions on major issues and who offer sensible solutions to the nation's problems, not for the ones who offer glib rhetoric or charming personalities.

Politicians tell us over and over again that they are smarter than you and I. I don't know about you, but it's not true for me. I received better grades than Bush, or Kerry, or Kennedy in an Ivy Leage College. They say that they know more than you or I. It's true that they have access to more information than we do on some subjects, such as progress in the Iraq war, but they don't read all of it. They have staff members that filter out what they know the boss "is not interested in." They ignore or trivialize the facts and statistics that do not support their personal beliefs. And they brush off the questions and comments of those who disagree with them. One hundred senators voted on an immigration bill that most of them had not read all the way through, and many voted in favor of it anyway.

Our elected officials put their pants on one leg at a time just as we do. We are "smart" enough to have elected them to office. But once they are in office, the arrogance takes over, and they no longer pay attention to the voices of the very people who elected them. Shame, shame, shame...

Wealth and Happiness

"Money can't buy happiness," our parents always told us.

Apparently that's true for society as a whole. We are more affluent than ever, and we have luxuries that our grandparents never dream of. In the last thirty years, our homes have become larger, and they are stuffed with all kinds of devices--big screen color televisions, microwave ovens, digital cameras, personal computers, compact disc players, DVD players. But surveys show that people are not any happier. Over the last 30 years, the statistics have changed very little: Very happy, about 34%; pretty happy, about 55%; and not too happy, about 11%. Our increased wealth is just not producing increased happiness. The question, of course, is why?

In a book titled Falling Behind, Robert Frank, a Cornell University economics professor, argues that one reason may be that increasing affluence causes us to be in continuing consumption contests. People want larger homes because their friends have larger homes. They may take a second job or assume more debt to get the larger home, and that results in less leisure or more stress, or both. Moving farther out into the suburbs creates more traffic congestion and pollution, and commuting leaves us less leisure time.

It's obvious to me that larger homes and more complicated machines require more maintenance. They break, and need to be repaired. We become so accustomed to them that it is very frustrating to lose the use of them even temporarily. Again, the result is less leisure and more stress.

Robert J. Samuelson, a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post, believes that a major barrier to happiness today is increased econonomic insecurity. The median job tenure for men aged 45 to 54 dropped from about 13 years in 1983 to 8 years in 2006. The increased practices of outsourcing and importing labor give many people cause to worry.

On the other hand, the sources of true happiness are probably fairly constant in our lives--things like our relationships with family members and friends, the satisfaction we get from helping others, and the enjoyment we derive from our hobbies, the pleasure we get from fine music, literature, and art.

I think that a lot of happiness comes from within. Regardless of our wealth, life is going to present us with good events and bad events. It's how we deal with those events that determines our degree of happiness. Some people complain no matter how wealthy they are; others will smile through the worst of tribulations. I once mentioned to my boss on a new job that the job presented a lot of problems. He said, "Those are not problems; they are opportunities." When I have one of those days when everything goes wrong and I start to feel angry or depressed, I try to remember those words.

Strategy for a Presidential Campaign

In the Los Angeles Times Opinion section on Sunday, July 15, Frank Luntz proposes a "GOP comeback strategy. Actually, this approach might work well for just about any candidate for the Presidency:

1. Empathize with and embrace a nation of voters who are "fed up" with the current situation in Washington. Many voters are unhappy with both the executive and legislative branches of government. Congress has failed to deliver on tough ethics standards, elimination of wasteful spending, and fixing the immigration problem. And the President has the lowest approval score since Richard Nixon.
2. Develop a message of hope--offering a vision for what America can and should be. Don't tell us what is wrong. Tell us what you will do right. Don't talk about the past. Talk about the future.
3. Be authentic. Don't re-hash another president's theme. The "great society" and the "shining city on a hill" belong to other persons and to past times that cannot be copied or recaptured.
4. Win Ohio. This means, Mr. Luntz explains, articulate a culturally conservative message fused with government accountability and economic opportunity, tailored toward voters in the industrial heartland of the nation.

There is a lot of good sense here. A good campaign avoids ad hominum attacks, which are a scoundrel's substite for a well-articulated vision of the future. An effective campaign looks to the future, not to the past. It offers specific improvements in an atmosphere of respect, integrity and trust. It responds positively to the voiced requests of the majority of the voting public as opposed to the hidden agendas of the wealthy few.

Whether one takes guidance from Dr. Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking, or Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, or just tries to Keep on the Sunny Side of Life, he will find that the greatest achievements are accomplished by concentration on a positive vision, not by constant criticism, complaining, and bickering.

When Jerks Break the Law

In a recent opinion, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court said words to the effect, "There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a person from being a jerk."

He's right, of course. There are a lot of jerks in our country. They are always right, and everyone else is always wrong. Jerks annoy, frustrate, and anger almost everyone they come in contact with.

About the only thing worse than a jerk is a jerk who breaks the law. Even after he is forced to comply with the law, or punished, the jerk insists that the law is wrong. And the people who enforced the law are wrong.

Moreover, the jerk insists on getting revenge against the "wrong" people who enforced the "wrong" law. The jerk always has to have the last word. A good example is running the email circuit these days:

A city councilman in Utah , Mark Easton, had a beautiful view of the east mountains, until a new neighbor purchased the lot below his house and built a new home. The new home was 18 inches higher than the ordinances would allow, so Mark Easton , mad about his lost view, went to the city to make sure they enforced the lower roof line ordinance. The new neighbor had to drop the roof line, at great expense. Recently, Mark Easton called the city, and informed them that his new neighbor had installed some vents on the side of his home. Mark didn't like the look of these vents and asked the city to investigate. When they went toMark's home to see the vent view, this is what they found...

The guy broke the law. The councilman had the city enforce the law. But the neighbor is a jerk--selfish, inconsiderate, pig-headed, and vindictive. But even a jerk has freedom of speech under our constitution.

I know of two places where jerks get there due. The first is the emporer in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado: "My object all sublime/ I shall achieve in time/ to let the punishment fit the crime..." The second place where jerks got their due was in a comic strip. It was called Hatlo's Inferno, and appeared as the Sunday edition of They'll Do It Every Time, by Jimmy Hatlo. There, the jerks spent their eternity in Hell having their own bad acts performed on them over and over again by demons.

The irony is that the more upset you or I get about the actions of a jerk, the more enjoyment he gets out of it. So, I guess the best way to handle jerks is not to get angry, or at least not let your anger and frustration show. But I still yearn for a way to make the jerk suffer dearly when he does his evil.

Vice President Cheney

I just read the Washington post series of articles about Vice President Cheney. It was very enlightening.

Cheney deserves some credit for piercing through and working around the bureaucratic static that has rendered prior VPs virtually ineffective. He would probably be a valuable asset to a stronger and more intelligent president.

I strongly oppose Cheney's pro-big business agenda. Government policies should serve to improve life for all of us, not for just a few obscenely wealthy CEOs.

But it is all too easy for us to criticize Cheney. His critics harp incessantly about what we should NOT be doing. But few have the courage to spell out specific alternatives, and to explain how those alternatives would produce better outcomes. They seem to concentrate more on winning an election than on real problem solving.

My friend, Bruce, commented that "It may have nothing to do with courage. There may not be a clear alternitive to a course of action or a policy. But if one course of action or policy is seen and understood to be catastrophic, it is very important to say so. If you saw conditions on a train bridge that you understood would cause the bridge to fall down when the next train passed over it, it would be your responsibility to say so, even if you had no clear way of fixing the bridge. First and most important would be to prevent a wreck."

While I agree with Bruce, those are two very important conditions: (1) impending catastrophe, and (2) no clear alternatives. I can see how some topics can be viewed, and are viewed by many, as meeting both conditions. But I don't believe that ALL of these issues meet BOTH tests:

Health care
Government debt
Equitable taxation
Iraq war
Terrorist actions
Illegal immigration
Abortion
Stem cell research
Eminent domain
Global warming
Oil depletion
Air and water pollution
Corruption in Legislative Branch
Corruption in Executive Branch


Some politicians seem to view virtually everything as an impending disaster. They complain and complain that everything in life is terrible, and that the only solution is to "shoot the tsars." Just as in Orwell's animal farm, once these critics get the power, they abuse it as much or more than the tsars did.

By the way, once one has stopped a train, one must be prepared to deal with the foreseeable consequences of that action: getting the passengers, mail and freight to their destinations, dealing with the losses from missed meetings and delayed shipments, repairing the bridge, determining the cause of the bridge collapse, and finding ways of reducing the chance of another collapse, etc, etc. Also important, one must be convinced that stopping the train will not cause an outcome even more horrible than the train crash.

Fear is a frequent companion of the lust for power. Most solutions to a problem will be imperfect--they will have pros and cons. Fear that the cons of a specific proposal will lose him votes keeps a politician from making the proposal. And the politician assumes that the voters are both less informed and less intelligent than he is. So he finds it easier and more colorful to launch an ad hominum attack.

Income Inequality AND Immigration

The Senate could not come up with a bill that corrects the illegal immigration problem.

But the House of Representatives was able to vote themselves a $4,000 pay raise!

Just as I said, the wealthy continue to pad their own pockets. Poor performance does not go unrewarded!!!

The Senate Immigration Bill

So, the Senate Immigration bill has been killed. That's a real shame!! Now we are stuck with the ever-worsening problem.

It's time for some real leadership--the kind of leadership that President Bush will not and can not provide. Specifically, the executive and judicial branches should be rigidly enforcing our existing immigration laws. Secure the border, and punish the employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The Senate bill had some excellent elements, but also many flaws:

• It did not provide sufficient border security
• It did not deal strongly with the illegal immigrants who committed crimes after they arrived
• It provided a weak, convoluted 'path to citizenship' for virtually all illegal aliens--one that would require a very costly administrative staff
• It provided the illegal aliens with entitlement which should be available only to citizens
• It did not sufficiently penalize the law-breaking employers

I have said before that our country has too many laws; there are so many that the ones we have are not being enforced. Immigration law is the perfect example of that. If we are not enforcing our current border security laws, how can we possibly expect that the provisions in the Senate bill would be enforced?

Our legislators were playing political football with over 600 pages of paper that gave half of the farm to the law-breaking employers, and the other half of the farm to the illegal aliens. Some senators were actually voting for a bill that they have not even read!!

I have decided to support the Bill O'Reilly "no spin immigration plan." Not surprisingly, 87 percent of the visitors to his web site support it.

1. Secure the southern border with 700, not 300 miles of barrier, double the border patrol and back them up with 10,000 National Guards people. That would effectively shut down human and drug smuggling from Mexico.
2. Require all illegal aliens in the country right now to register at the post office with Homeland Security. After registering, they would be given a tamper proof ID card, designating their status and their right to work temporarily in the USA. If the illegal aliens do not register, it's a criminal felony. Right now sneaking across the border is a civil action. Remember that. Subjecting the person to immediate deportation or jail time. The criminal penalty goes way up.
3. Any business that hires an illegal worker who doesn't have a tamper proof ID card faces draconian fines and possible prison time for the executives.
4. Each illegal alien would have his case reviewed by federal authorities. And they would decide who would receive a Z-visa to stay and who would not. That takes the blanket amnesty, something many American hate, off the table. It also allows the feds to make rational decisions about who's helping America and who isn't.

We should not give away our tax money to criminals; instead, we should be using our tax money to prevent the crimes and to punish the criminals.

Income Inequality

I have been subscribing to The Week magazine for a couple of years now. It summarizes news articles from all over the country and all around the world on major issues and events. The diverse articles offer the closest thing I have found to "balanced coverage" on current events. But last week the magazine missed the mark on one topic.

Under the heading, Best Columns, the Business section of last week's magazine titled its issue of the week "What's causing income inequality?" The four columns summarized either glossed over the real causes, or missed them completely.

First, they quoted Roger Lowenstein of The New York Times Magazine, who defined the issue: "In 1979, the top 1 percent of the population collected 9% of the national income. In 2004, their share had jumped to 16 percent. Or look at it this way: Since 1979, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent of earners have grown only 2 percent, adjusted for inflation. But during that same period, the incomes of the top 20 percent have increased a whopping 63 percent...[W]hat may be the most pressing domestic issue of our time: 'Why isn't prosperity spreading more equally?'"

Next they excerpted an article by Tyler Cowen in The New York Times: "The most commonly cited culprits" are outsourcing, immigration, and greed. But those are "diversions from the main issue," and that's education--or the lack thereof...The focus should be on giving more people access to a decent education, at all levels.

Then they cite Jared Bernstein and Lawrence Mishel in Huffington post.com, who in turn point out that that the wage growth of college grads is no longer outpacing that of less educated workers. These authors blame the growing inequity on the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy and on weak unions, aggressive outsourcing and offshoring. The lack of education, they say didn't cause the inequality, and while a more highly educated work force is a worthy goal, it won't reduce it.

Finally, they quote George Will in the Washington Post, who says that income inequality is not really an issue, because economic burdens and benefits have never been spread evenly. We should look instead at the fact that the economy has been growing at a robust pace with more than 8 million jobs created since the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

As I have said, the articles cited in The Week either understate the income inequality issue, or they overlook the true root causes. I will try to set the record straight.

FIRST, INCOME INEQUALITY IS A REAL ISSUE: Roger Lowenstein is right, and George Will is wrong. It's just fine that millions of jobs have been created since 2002. But you just cannot get away from the fact that roughly 5 percent of our wage earners received nothing because they are out of work, and 94 percent of the earners are struggling to keep even with inflation while that top 1 percent is receiving incomes of anywhere from $1 million to $60 million, or more. Frankly, there are very few individuals whose real contributions to society are worth anywhere near those values. The individual incomes are rightly referred to as "obscene."

SECOND, THE SUGGESTED CAUSES ARE NOT THE REAL CAUSES: Many of our wealthiest 1 percent do not even have college degrees. If I recall correctly, Bill Gates is a college dropout, as are many executives. And not many of our highest paid entertainers have college degrees. The IRS statistics on income show that since the Bush tax cuts, the wealthiest earners are in fact paying a larger portion of their total income in federal taxes. Unions may be weaker precisely because their revenue from union dues no longer gives them the political leverage they need against the obscenely wealthy corporations and executives. As much as our workers despise the use of outsourcing and immigrant labor, those business decisions are just a portion of the activities and schemes that the people who are obscenely wealthy use to increase the inequality. They too are symptoms, not root causes of the income equality problem.

THERE ARE JUST TWO REASONS FOR INCOME INEQUALITY-- GREED AND MIS-DIRECTED SOCIAL VALUES: We don't want to accept these reasons because we have no idea at all about how to abolish greed, and because we are in a state of denial with regard to the fact that each and every one of us has such distorted values.

Let's first look at greed. Has it ever occurred to you that many of our wealthiest people set their own salaries and benefit programs? Elected officials, whether they are city councilmen, county supervisors, state or federal legislators, set their own salaries. The salaries and benefits of CEO's and members of corporate boards set their own salaries because together they control enough stock to do so. So all of these wealthy folks are in a position to say, "I will have a 15 percent pay raise next year, but Joe the carpenter will have to accept a 3 percent raise so our company can stay competive. Not only that, but since the company's earnings dropped by 10 per cent last year, our CEO will only get a 10 percent raise instead of a 15 percent raise." The CEO will tell us that he earns the big bucks because he solves the big problems and takes they big risks. But if a CEO performs really badly, he is first paid, then asked to resign, and then given a juicy severence package." There is no risk for him in that, although hundreds of employees may have lost their jobs in the process. It's just as much fun for legislators. They can increase the minimum wage a few percentage points every 10 years or so while voting themselves much more lucrative increases in wages and benefits. At one time, average CEO salaries in this country were 22 times as great as the average employee salaries. Now they are 152 times as great. The workers in our country did not agree to that, but they have had to accept it. The greedy wealthy folks gave it to themselves. We have spent 40 years in this country devising legislation to outlaw bigotry. Maybe we realize that greed is as difficult to outlaw, or even more so.

The second cause, mis-directed values, is even harder for us to accept, and to deal with. An engineer spends a year designing a bridge that will take thousands of workers to and from their jobs everyday. For his one year effort, he may be paid $80,000. A heart surgeon saves the lives of 50 people one year, and is paid $200,000 for the service. A nurse helps hundreds of people to recover from illness or surgery and receives $50,000 for the effort. A lady sings ballads to an audience of two thousand people for 2 hours one evening and walks away with $2 million. A man throws a little white ball at another man holding a stick all year long and takes home $5 million. Another guy stars in one motion picture and gets $15 million. Folks groan every time I mention these examples. Just to be clear: I appreciate talent. Entertainment is an essential part of a heathy society. Singing, athletics, and acting are hard work. The final performances are good only because of the many hours of practice that precede them. These income disparities have nothing to do with tax cuts, weak unions, lack of education, outsourcing, or immigration. Instead, they are the logical results of the decisions that each of us makes with his wallet every day. Can we ever convice ourselves that a concert seat is only worth $65, and a visit to our doctor is worth $130, rather than the reverse? "The pursuit of happiness" has become so important to us that we short-change the basic fundamentals of survival to carry it out.

Are there any solutions to income inequality? Lenin had one, and it did not work. I don't have any right now. I can and do decide how many concerts and professional athletic events I attend (many fewer than I would like to), but I don't think that will affect the salaries unless everyone else does it too. We can't legislate peoples' buying habits any more than we can legislate away individual greed. Is it possible that, when it comes to income inequality, the cures are more painful than the disease? Maybe we just have to live with it. The wealthiest 1 percent of the people gave themselves a 63 percent pay raise over the last 25 years--they would sure like us to accept that, along with our own 2 percent.

Fathers' Day

I had a fine Fathers' Day. Bonnie bought me some Merlot, Amber gave me gift cards for Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf (I like their dark Sumatra), and Heather gave me slippers and a CD-ROM with a virtual tour of HMS Victory. So I can put on my slippers, and drink some coffee and some wine while I tour Victory. But the real blessing, of course, is the love that those tokens represent--it reminds me how worthwhile the journey through life can be.

Choral Music

Time sure gets away from me--a post is long overdue.

I just added a site to my list of recorded music sources: http://www.singers.com/choral/
This one specializes in choral music. It has not only CDs, but sheet music and profiles of many choral groups around the world as well. If you like choral music even half as much as I do, you will find an abundance of information on this site.

Highland Gathering

Bonnie and I attended the 75th annual Highland Gathering at the Pomona fairgrounds today. What a thrill that was! I guess I can claim 1/4 Scottish heritage; my maternal grandfather was a Graham.

We spent most of our time watching the pipe and drum competition. I think I heard enough bagpipes to last me for a few weeks, at least. It was a very colorful day, as the pipers and many of the attendees wore kilts.

They had several stages with different groups performing folk songs and such. And, of course, there were vendors selling all kinds of Scottish things.

We will probably go again next year and check out stage performances as well as the dancing competition and the athletic events.

Books and Libraries

I've been having a great time filling my bookshelf on shelfari.com, but I've got a long way to go if my virtual bookshelf is going to match my actual one.

In the process, though, I found a great web site for someone who does not necessarily want to buy a book, but would like to borrow it from a lending library for just one reading. It lets you locate a book in a library near you. You type in the name of the book and your zip code, and it gives you the names of nearby libraries that hold a copy. The libraries must first have registered with the site, of course. I tried it, and it seems to work pretty well. The site address is: http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/. I will add it to my side bar as well.

Happy hunting.

Reading Books and Sharing

I just registered on a site called Shelfari. Contributors create virtual bookshelves that display icons of their favorite books, then share their opinions and comments with other contributors and in discussion groups. It even has links that enable you to buy a book that you would like to read. I figure I will try to add a book a day. The site is still in beta, and has some glitches to work out, but I hope it catches on. Here is a link to my bookshelf: http://www.shelfari.com/TradeWinds/shelf. I have also placed a link in my sidebar for future use.

Rob Needs

I stumbled across another blogger who had Googled "(his name) needs." He published the results and suggested his readers might enjoy doing the same. So I gave it a try. The Google search produced 4,710,000 results. I only checked out the first 16. My favorites are No. 1, 6, 13, and 15.

ROB NEEDS:

1. Rob's Hard Hat--found at The Rob Store

2. A Hero

3. Therapy (You will too, after you spend a few minutes here--http://aotsrobneedstherapy.ytmnd.com/)

4. A Job

5. A Professional Profile

6. To shut his gob

7. A copy editor

8. Credit for stepping up and fighting the biggest guy on the show!

9. A Net Clued Lawyer, urgently.

10. To move his legs and he prefers to do such with a lady dance

11. Replacement

12. Medicine

13. Your support and donations

14. To ask "What permits are required for this site to operate?

15. To have a party in his honor

16. Help again

So, if I can get the above, along with the other 4,709, 984 things I need, I should be in pretty good shape. How about you?

A Different Kind of War

I frequently complain that President Bush has failed to mobilize opinion and support for the war against terrorism on the home front as Franklin Roosevelt did in WWII; instead, he has let us fall into a frenzy of anger over each setback, and a continuous and morbid count of each and every soldier that dies. It’s been pointed out that there is virtually no parallel between the war on terrorism and WWII--after all, Hitler's army marched in the streets of Paris and Japan occupied dozens of Pacific islands. Al-qaida had neither invaded nor occupied Iraq. There are no nations or territories to win back from enemy occupation. The war we should be fighting is against terrorists, not against Iraqis.

I accept that there was little or no Al-qaida influence in Iraq when we invaded in 2002. In effect, the invasion of Iraq diverted our war on terrorism to a war on Iraq's sectarian insurgents. But that can't be undone; we are there now, and so is Al-qaida. To stem the violence in Iraq will not only strengthen the Al-Maliki government; it will defeat an arm of Al-qaida. We do need to get out of Iraq and back onto the main targets as quickly as we can, but not at the expense of turning Iraq into another Pakistan. A key step in that process is to disarm the sectarian militias. That we and the Iraqi government have failed to do so in over 4 years is disgraceful.

We have made several tactical and strategic blunders in Iraq. But we and our allies made lots of blunders in WWII, and the resulting losses were orders of magnitude larger. What are disheartening are the attitudes of citizens and politicians at home who dwell on the mistakes instead of pressing us onward for the noble cause. It's partly because President Bush is incapable of communicating with us and motivating us to forge ahead the way President Roosevelt did. It's also because most people do not seem to understand how and why the war on terrorism is so different from WWII.

WWII was typical of the classic, or traditional, wars between nations. The Axis Nations sent large armies into the sovereign lands of the Allied Forces. Our enemy was tightly organized under central control, and they wore uniforms. Their weapons were thousands of tanks, squadrons of aircraft, and fleets of ships that were concentrated to gain physical possession of specific territories. The strongest guys won, and the losing nations signed peace treaties. In the war on terrorism, however, the enemy is not a specific nation. There is no large, uniformed, well-equipped army massing at the border of our nation with the intent to occupy. In fact, the enemies will not defeat us with military force and make us sign a treaty of surrender. Guns, bullets, and explosives are ancillary weapons; the real weapon is the psychology of fear. Soldiers without uniforms sneak into a country not to possess the land, but rather to gain possession of the minds and souls of the people, or else to kill them. Their strike is not merely against the country’s armed forces, but against all non-believers. They sacrifice their own lives in the attack, so there is no force to counter-attack. Eventually, they believe, the people of our nation will be so horrified, so confused, so dejected, so afraid, that they will embrace the true faith. Their government will fall and be replaced by a government of people who embrace the faith. The terrorists do not want our land, they want our allegiance, or our death. Victory belongs not to a man or to a nation, but to a belief.

Traditional military forces and tactics are not very effective to defeat this kind of enemy. New techniques must be tried, and some of those will fail. The public must be patient, accept some failures, but continue the struggle. To try to get the enemy after a strike is too late; the soldiers are dead. Fighting him at the time of the strike is extremely difficult; the attack is designed to be a complete surprise. While the terrorists are setting up the attack is a difficult time to capture them too, since the participants are scattered and secretive. What is left is to attack the places where they train their soldiers—in the countries that harbor and support the training camps. We can also disrupt their finances and their communications. We can attempt to identify terrorists in our midst and jail or deport them. The terrorists view our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful searches, and protection of prisoners from cruelty as weaknesses that they can exploit. But the terrorists have renounced our constitution--they are not playing by the rules of our game. Because of that, they should not receive the full benefits of constitutional protection. We can show them that we will not be defeated psychologically, nor by deceit; that we will take all actions necessary to foil their attempts to kill us.

A Government of Fools

In a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times, a voter from Encino offers his description of the electoral process in the United States. Here I have paraphrased it:

• All of us have voted for a candidate's concrete plan, only to have the candidate do something completely different once in office.
• A modern campaign candidate must be cautious and speak in generalities, so that he will not be skewered by his opponents, or accused of making a faux pas.
• Any of the Democratic candidates would provide an enormous improvement over the current administration.

Virtually everyone I know takes one or more of those positions. Many people vote strictly along party lines. They refuse to listen to a candidate from the opposition party, assuming that nobody in the other party could ever have a better idea. Many believe that most politicians will say virtually anything to get elected and, once in office, will renige on their promises. I guess they just can't tell when a candidate is passionate about a principle. Most important, people don't want to be bothered with facts and detailed plans. They would much rather vote for someone who is charming and who promises us "a wonderful life," whatever that is. To me, this false and lazy attitude among the voting public is the main reason that we have so many incompetent clowns running for and serving in public offices.

When we limit our judgements to how likeable a candidate is, and to general platitudes like "We need to get out of Iraq soon," or "We must have immigration reform," we elect candidates without knowing how they will resolve the problems. When they implement their disastrous agendas, we feel betrayed, but we deserve what we get.

Obviously, to offer too much detail about a plan for dealing with one of those issues would make a candidate seem inflexible, boring, and even unappealing to one or more segments of the voting public. But a candidate who is both passionate and intelligent should be able to define and outline a middle ground between the empty generality and the crippling details. He should be able to propose a few objectives or purposes that he believes are essential elements or characteristics of the resolution of an issue. Then, he should be able to prioritize those elements and define the possible alternative approaches to implementing each. This technique is extremely difficult for a candidate. It requires that he be able to parse a problem, and to define solutions that will be attractive to the majority of voters and, at the same time, to offer acceptable compromises to the minorities. Then, he must present his plans in a manner that is clear, succinct, sincere, and (yes) likeable as well.

It's tougher for us voters, too. We need to eschew those candidates who constantly attack their opponents, and utterly fail to offer alternative plans with substance. We can't rely on rhetoric and flashy slogans. We have to gather a lot of facts about complex issues. We must analyze each part of a problem from two or more perspectives. To do that, we may have to discuss the problem with people who do not share our view of it. We must realize that the optimum approach to a problem includes the best solutions for the most critical parts accompanied by compromises on some of the less important parts.

If voters and the candidates are unable or unwilling to step up to these difficult tasks, we will have to be content with a government of the fools, by the fools and for the fools.

...And Baby Makes 3...

I discussed Alec Baldwin in my post Celebrities and Narcissism on Sept. 24, 2006. Some of his film performances have been excellent, but good acting does not make a good person. To hear him talk, Alec is more intelligent than all of us, and certainly a better person. But in fact, he is not very smart at all. He compensates for his insecurity by claiming to be smarter and better than everyone, and by being demanding, controlling, and vindictive.

The recent release by TMZ of a voice mail from him to his eleven year old daughter, Ireland, shows how these characteristics get out of control.

According to TMZ, "An enraged Alec Baldwin unleashed a volcanic tirade of threats and insults on his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland, calling her a "thoughtless little pig," and bashing her mother Kim Basinger...After Ireland failed to answer her father's scheduled morning phone call from New York on April 11, Alec went berserk on her voice mail, saying "Once again, I have made an ass of myself trying to get to a phone," adding, "you have insulted me for the last time." Switching his train of thought, Baldwin then exercised his incredible parenting skills and took a shot at his ex-wife, declaring, 'I don't give a damn that you're 12-years-old or 11-years-old, or a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do.' The irate Baldwin went on to say, 'You've made me feel like s**t,' and threatened to 'straighten your ass out.' 'This crap you pull on me with this goddamn phone situation that you would never dream of doing to your mother,' screamed Baldwin, 'and you do it to me constantly over and over again.' Before hanging up, Baldwin warned the child, 'You better be ready Friday the 20th to meet with me.'"

I am not sure how long this link will actually work, but you can try to listen for your self here: Alec Baldwin's message

This man, who claims to be so brilliant, demonstrates his utter lack of self control and his total ineptness in dealing with people, especially in being a parent.

On Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court commissioner Maren Nelson heard the tape and temporarily suspended Baldwin's visitation rights. A hearing is set for May 4.

To his credit, Baldwin later called and apologized for what he said. It is evident that six years of a messy divorce from Kim Bassinger have frustrated and angered him. Apparently Bassinger, who can also be vicious and vindictive, has been trying to alienate the child from her father. In addition, she allegedly leaked the recording to the public in violation of a court order. They have placed little Ireland square in the middle of their selfish battle for power, control, and retribution . If Kim and Alec were able to acknowledge their own weaknesses, and were willing to believe that a counselor could give them the knowledge and skills to overcome them, the child might not suffer. But both parents are too consumed with anger and bitterness, and too narcissistic to accept the fact that someone else could help.

The real victim, of course, is Ireland. She has learned from her father how to be controlling. She has learned from her mother how to be vindictive. She has learned from both that rage and angry language are weapons to be used with no restraint or control. And Alec has imbued her with the self-doubt that will cause her to become a narcissist just like him.

Wages and Value: We Get What We Pay For

Parade Magazine just published their annual report on what people earn. The report shows us what professions are most important to us. By reviewing the numbers, we can see whose great intelligence, finely honed technical skills, and back-breaking labor are are making the most valuable contributions to the health, education, and general well-being of our society. Here are some examples:

College Professor $64,900...Pro Soccer Player $ 50 million
Lt., Fire Dep't. $64,000....Movie Actor $25 million
School Nurse $88,000...Author of novels $28 million
Probation Officer $45,000...Rock Singer $15.6 million
Police Lt. $64,000...Radio/TV Host $12 million
Respiratory Therapist $87,000...Pro Tennis Player $3.8 million
Children's Librarian $30,700...Singer/designer $175 million
Child Care Provider $24,000...Actor $3.3 million
Registered Nurse $76,000...Country Singer $75.9 million
Pharmacist $87,000...Baseball Player $18 million
Guidance Counselor $54,000....Actor $23 million
Medical Resident $45,000...Actor $3.5 million
Minister $9,000....Olympic Skier $5 million
Flight Inspector $61,000...Actress $8 million

When you add up the numbers in both columns and divide the results, you can quickly see that entertainment and sports are 570 times as valuable to us as health care, law enforcement, education. For some reason, I did not find some research scientists, construction workers, ice skaters, or pro golfers to put in the list. The value of their contributions must not be worth talking about.

I have been accused of saying that entertainers and sports figures are worthless, but that is not true. These people work very hard at playing their guitars, shaking their hips, and tossing balls with extreme accuracy. Moreover, we all need a certain amount of entertainment to relieve the stress and monotony of our depressing and arduous lives.

We all establish these values ourselves, when we attend a basketball game, or view and call in to American Idol, by seeing a movie or buying a DVD, or by voting down a measure to increase teachers' pay. So if the robbers and rapists have not been put in jail yet, if the roads are full of potholes, if our children cannot read or write, if we don't have a cure for cancer yet--it's because we find it 570 times more important to watch a rock singer on TV.