This morning, my front yard became a crime scene!
At about 7:30 a.m., I went out to get the paper. Strangely, the paper was on my front stoop, not in the driveway, as usual. Then I noticed that my garden hose, attached to a bib by the front door was laid across the stoop, across the front walk, and out to the driveway--and the water was running.
I stepped out front, and on the lawn on the other side of the driveway, was a large metal safe that had been cut open with a torch. Lying in front of the garage door were three shotguns. By the safe was an empty handgun holster. Ammunition was strewn all over the driveway.
When I called 911 to report the situation, I learned that police units had already been dispatched to a nearby house. Before long, a neighbor came by, and explained that two safes had been taken from his garage. One was on our lawn. The second was found later in the driveway of a house on the other side of the street, a couple of doors down. The guns all belonged to my neighbor, who is a hunter. Apparently, the only thing missing from the safe in my yard was a large amount of cash.
The neighbor said that a similar robbery took place on the street next to ours about a month ago. Articles from that robbery had been strewn along the footpath in the green belt that surrounds our tract.
Soon, more police units were here, along with a sergeant, and a detective. They interviewed Bonnie and me. We had gone to bed about 10:30 Friday night. Our dogs woke us as usual a few minutes before 7:00 this morning. Neither we nor the dogs had heard anything. The master bedroom is at the back of the house, and we use one of those white noise generators to mask out sound at night. The police checked the area around the house, but found no signs of the perpetrator(s).
Bonnie and I went about our business. We went shopping for groceries that we need for our Christmas Eve dinner. When we returned, the police were still here. They called in a tow truck to pick up both of the safes. It was after 11:00 a.m. before everyone was gone and things were back to normal. The police took my garden hose as material evidence. They said it may have fingerprints or DNA on it.
I wonder if I will ever find out who committed the robbery. I am pretty sure, though, that I will never see my garden hose again.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Gun Control
This is another issue that tends leads to a polarization between the right and the left. An email is going around on the subject, which I will quote in part:
Although I have never owned a gun, I have strongly opposed any law that would prohibit personal ownership of a firearm. I was even a member of the NRA for a few years. I believe that individuals should be allowed to own firearms for the purpose of hunting, target practice, or personal protection. It appears that the states that allow persons to carry concealed handguns have, in fact seen reductions in armed robbery.
But I see no need for private ownership of automatic or rapid fire assault weapons. These are the tools of war and police action. A private individual has no more need for them than he has for a Sherman tank or an atomic bomb. And I see nothing wrong with the use of background checks to deter people with mental problems or criminal records from purchasing guns. So I think there is a middle ground on the regulation of firearms ownership.
Let's face it, outlawing private ownership of guns will not solve the problem of gun-related crime. The bad guys are going to get their firearms anyway, by deception and theft. The good guys should be allowed to possess firearms too. A person who complies with reasonable laws related to the purchase of his firearm will likely comply with the laws regarding its use.
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Those are some dramatic statistics. Certainly, the confiscation of firearms by a dictatorship strengthens the dictatorship, and makes it easier to dispatch any opposition. But it is unlikely that something like that would or could happen in the United States.
The email proceeds to quote some ambiguous and misleading data about the recent 'buy back' gun control program in Australia. Snopes.com provides data that clarifies or refutes the statements in the email:
"It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:..."
Snopes states that the program was put in place in 1997. People who needed guns for professional or valid personal safety reasons were permitted to keep theirs, except for semi-automatic or pump action weapons.
"Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent."
According to Snopes, the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. The absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.
"Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!"
But, Snopes says, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years: 1995 -27.8%, 1996 - 25.3%, 1997 - 24.1%, 1998 - 17.6%, 1999 - 15.2%, 2000 - 14.0%
"In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)"
Although I have never owned a gun, I have strongly opposed any law that would prohibit personal ownership of a firearm. I was even a member of the NRA for a few years. I believe that individuals should be allowed to own firearms for the purpose of hunting, target practice, or personal protection. It appears that the states that allow persons to carry concealed handguns have, in fact seen reductions in armed robbery.
But I see no need for private ownership of automatic or rapid fire assault weapons. These are the tools of war and police action. A private individual has no more need for them than he has for a Sherman tank or an atomic bomb. And I see nothing wrong with the use of background checks to deter people with mental problems or criminal records from purchasing guns. So I think there is a middle ground on the regulation of firearms ownership.
Let's face it, outlawing private ownership of guns will not solve the problem of gun-related crime. The bad guys are going to get their firearms anyway, by deception and theft. The good guys should be allowed to possess firearms too. A person who complies with reasonable laws related to the purchase of his firearm will likely comply with the laws regarding its use.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Politically Correct Education
Elizabeth Kantor wrote in the Boston Globe about how researchers from the University of Connecticut interviewed 14,000 undergraduates at 50 colleges across the nation and determined that seniors know less about American history and government than entering freshmen.
In these 50 schools, students spend 4 years with professors who no longer teach English Literature, the classics, or any of the other pillars of Western civilization. If modern college students study "dead white men" such as Homer, Lincoln, and Shakespeare at all, it's to expose and condemn their patriarchal oppression, racism, and imperialism. Professors ignore Shakespeare's beautiful language and his insights into human nature, and teach instead that Macbeth promoted the domestication of women. They replace Geoffrey Chaucer, Jane Austen, and John Milton with Erica Jong, comic books, or "queer theory." By graduation, the students have learned only that everything that happened before they were born was either irrelevant or wrong.
These dumbed down students may eventually become our corporate leaders, our prominent businessmen, even our senators and congressmen. And, worse yet, they will raise the next generation of children. They think they are smart, but they are totally ignorant of the knowledge of the ages.
You can read Ms Kantor's article here: Unlearning Literature
So if you or your children are in the process of selecting a college, take a close look at the course descriptions. Select a school that still teaches the beauty and wisdom in Shelley's sonnet, Ozymandias. Choose a college where both the exploits and the mistakes of Odysseus, Beowulf, and King Lear are analyzed. Avoid the colleges where the beauty and wisdom of the classics have been replaced by self-serving politically correct drivel. We owe it to our children and to the future of our society.
Elizabeth Kantor is the author of a book titled, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. It may well be worth reading.
In these 50 schools, students spend 4 years with professors who no longer teach English Literature, the classics, or any of the other pillars of Western civilization. If modern college students study "dead white men" such as Homer, Lincoln, and Shakespeare at all, it's to expose and condemn their patriarchal oppression, racism, and imperialism. Professors ignore Shakespeare's beautiful language and his insights into human nature, and teach instead that Macbeth promoted the domestication of women. They replace Geoffrey Chaucer, Jane Austen, and John Milton with Erica Jong, comic books, or "queer theory." By graduation, the students have learned only that everything that happened before they were born was either irrelevant or wrong.
These dumbed down students may eventually become our corporate leaders, our prominent businessmen, even our senators and congressmen. And, worse yet, they will raise the next generation of children. They think they are smart, but they are totally ignorant of the knowledge of the ages.
You can read Ms Kantor's article here: Unlearning Literature
So if you or your children are in the process of selecting a college, take a close look at the course descriptions. Select a school that still teaches the beauty and wisdom in Shelley's sonnet, Ozymandias. Choose a college where both the exploits and the mistakes of Odysseus, Beowulf, and King Lear are analyzed. Avoid the colleges where the beauty and wisdom of the classics have been replaced by self-serving politically correct drivel. We owe it to our children and to the future of our society.
Elizabeth Kantor is the author of a book titled, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. It may well be worth reading.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Discrimination
Ooooh, there's a nasty word. It is not as nasty as the 'n' word, but for some people, discrimination is indeed an inflammatory word. While there is some bad discrimination, however, there is a lot more good discrimination. In fact, life would be a sorry lot if people did not discriminate.
For example, take the process of selecting apples at a produce store. We choose the apples we will buy on the basis of our past experiences and on what people have told us about the freshness, the size, the color, and the taste and texture of the different varieties. Rotten apples, we know, are not good for us. We also eliminate apples that are bruised, or that have worms. Green apples, we know, are good for baking in pies, but they taste a little too tart for some people when we eat raw. The Yellow Delicious apples are sweet and juicy, but sometimes have a pithy texture. Then there are the Macintoshes, the Romes, the Jonathans, and dozens of other types that vary in size, color, flavor and texture. If the apples are too large, they won't fit in the children's lunch boxes; too small, and they are a pain to cut and peal for that pie. We use our knowledge to match the apple with our specific needs and tastes. People with different needs and tastes will select different apples. I really enjoyed my last efforts at apple discrimination. I got some Jonagolds--a cross between the Golden Delicious and the Jonathan. They are yellow with a bright red blush, tart and crisp like the Jonathan, and large and juicy like the Delicious.
So discrimination is the process of making choices based on our knowledge and our past experience. We use it to choose a place to live, to select an automobile, even to select a spouse. Good discrimination produces good results--delightful experiences. Those who say discrimination is bad have encountered the results of poor choices. Either they had to live with the results of a bad choice, or they were the person who was rejected by somebody who was making a bad choice. It is not discrimination that is bad; rather, it is the inaccurate knowledge, incomplete knowledge, or unrepresentative experiences of the person who makes the choices that is bad. Which knowledge we use is also important. In the example of the apples, I did not use price as a basis for the choice. In my store, all of the apples cost about the same, and a small price difference had no bearing on my decision. For a poorer person, saving a few pennies on the price may have been more important than having to cut away a bruise or two.
For a discrimination to produce good results, the knowledge upon which it is based must be valid, relevant, and complete. We get our knowledge from other people or from direct experience. When our knowledge is tainted with lies, when we fail to consider all of the relevant facts, when we consider unimportant or irrelevant facts, or when we generalize from one bad experience, our discrimination is faulty, and potentially leads to bad choices.
Unfortunately, some of us learn untrue things. Even more unfortunately, some of us are so stubborn that we refuse to replace the lies with facts. We refuse to accept and believe the truth. That is to say, some of us are prejudiced. The bad thing, then, is not discrimination; the bad thing is prejudice, the stubborn unwillingness to replace myth with fact.
So go forth and get accurate knowledge. Use it wisely and without prejudice. Then enjoy the fruits of discrimination, because discrimination is necessary for our well-being.
For example, take the process of selecting apples at a produce store. We choose the apples we will buy on the basis of our past experiences and on what people have told us about the freshness, the size, the color, and the taste and texture of the different varieties. Rotten apples, we know, are not good for us. We also eliminate apples that are bruised, or that have worms. Green apples, we know, are good for baking in pies, but they taste a little too tart for some people when we eat raw. The Yellow Delicious apples are sweet and juicy, but sometimes have a pithy texture. Then there are the Macintoshes, the Romes, the Jonathans, and dozens of other types that vary in size, color, flavor and texture. If the apples are too large, they won't fit in the children's lunch boxes; too small, and they are a pain to cut and peal for that pie. We use our knowledge to match the apple with our specific needs and tastes. People with different needs and tastes will select different apples. I really enjoyed my last efforts at apple discrimination. I got some Jonagolds--a cross between the Golden Delicious and the Jonathan. They are yellow with a bright red blush, tart and crisp like the Jonathan, and large and juicy like the Delicious.
So discrimination is the process of making choices based on our knowledge and our past experience. We use it to choose a place to live, to select an automobile, even to select a spouse. Good discrimination produces good results--delightful experiences. Those who say discrimination is bad have encountered the results of poor choices. Either they had to live with the results of a bad choice, or they were the person who was rejected by somebody who was making a bad choice. It is not discrimination that is bad; rather, it is the inaccurate knowledge, incomplete knowledge, or unrepresentative experiences of the person who makes the choices that is bad. Which knowledge we use is also important. In the example of the apples, I did not use price as a basis for the choice. In my store, all of the apples cost about the same, and a small price difference had no bearing on my decision. For a poorer person, saving a few pennies on the price may have been more important than having to cut away a bruise or two.
For a discrimination to produce good results, the knowledge upon which it is based must be valid, relevant, and complete. We get our knowledge from other people or from direct experience. When our knowledge is tainted with lies, when we fail to consider all of the relevant facts, when we consider unimportant or irrelevant facts, or when we generalize from one bad experience, our discrimination is faulty, and potentially leads to bad choices.
Unfortunately, some of us learn untrue things. Even more unfortunately, some of us are so stubborn that we refuse to replace the lies with facts. We refuse to accept and believe the truth. That is to say, some of us are prejudiced. The bad thing, then, is not discrimination; the bad thing is prejudice, the stubborn unwillingness to replace myth with fact.
So go forth and get accurate knowledge. Use it wisely and without prejudice. Then enjoy the fruits of discrimination, because discrimination is necessary for our well-being.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Yet Another Police Incident
They are calling it "the 50-bullet shoot-out." In New York City, Sean Bell, age 23, was holding his bachelor party at a strip club. He was to be married the next day. Bell left the club and went to his car. An undercover officer at the scene believed that Bell was going to retrieve a gun and return to the club. The officer ordered Bell to stop, police said, but Bell instead tried to run him down. The officer fired, and then other officers began shooting, killing Bell and wounding his two companions.
The details are sketchy at best, and we'll have to wait for completion of an investigation before we know the whole story.
As usual, though, the critics of the Police Department are screaming about the racist cops and their excessive use of force. These critics, of course, don't need to wait for an investigation. They already know the REAL facts.
It's very possible that the firing of 50 shots was absurdly excessive. But perhaps the officers felt that some of the 'friendly fire' was directed at them. We need to consider, too, that a mere 5 gunshots might possibly have been just as lethal. The issue is not how many shots were fired, but rather whether any shots should have been fired.
The critics cry, "racism," even though some of the officers involved were blacks and hispanics. We are now being fed the ridiculous lie that the police have "institutional racism;" that policemen are all trained to be anti-black.
Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided already. He says that he met with Bell's family, and determined that the boys were unarmed, and that they had done nothing wrong. Of course his family believe that. But I think we still deserve to learn the unvarnished facts of the situation. If Bell did, as the police say, refuse to stop and instead try to run an officer down, then he did indeed do something wrong--something that triggered the shooting. If, on the other hand, when he was told to stop, Bell had calmly said, "yes sir," and exited his car, the entire incident probably would have not occured.
The problem is, neither Bell's parents nor we know exactly what happened. That is why there should be an impartial investigation.
In the absence of facts on this specific incident, simple statistics should help us to assess the most likely circumstance. Just do the math: If, say, 5 police officers out of 100 are either racist, or excessively brutal, or both, there is a 5% chance that a courteous and obediant citizen may suffer some harm when stopped. On the other hand, there is probably a 99% chance that a citizen who refuses to obey and attacks an officer is going to get hurt or killed. Given the choice of how to behave, I will take the 5% alternative every time. And it is very likely that the unfortunate Sean Bell unwisely trod the 99% path.
Why, then, do we continually criticize our police and cripple them with absurdly restrictive rules of operation? Why do we refuse to accept the consequences of our own actions? Why do we refuse to teach ourselves and our children to behave properly when approached by the law? Those who are so eager to deny any ownership of the problem and who rush to blame it all on "racists" are the real racists and the real villains.
The details are sketchy at best, and we'll have to wait for completion of an investigation before we know the whole story.
As usual, though, the critics of the Police Department are screaming about the racist cops and their excessive use of force. These critics, of course, don't need to wait for an investigation. They already know the REAL facts.
It's very possible that the firing of 50 shots was absurdly excessive. But perhaps the officers felt that some of the 'friendly fire' was directed at them. We need to consider, too, that a mere 5 gunshots might possibly have been just as lethal. The issue is not how many shots were fired, but rather whether any shots should have been fired.
The critics cry, "racism," even though some of the officers involved were blacks and hispanics. We are now being fed the ridiculous lie that the police have "institutional racism;" that policemen are all trained to be anti-black.
Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided already. He says that he met with Bell's family, and determined that the boys were unarmed, and that they had done nothing wrong. Of course his family believe that. But I think we still deserve to learn the unvarnished facts of the situation. If Bell did, as the police say, refuse to stop and instead try to run an officer down, then he did indeed do something wrong--something that triggered the shooting. If, on the other hand, when he was told to stop, Bell had calmly said, "yes sir," and exited his car, the entire incident probably would have not occured.
The problem is, neither Bell's parents nor we know exactly what happened. That is why there should be an impartial investigation.
In the absence of facts on this specific incident, simple statistics should help us to assess the most likely circumstance. Just do the math: If, say, 5 police officers out of 100 are either racist, or excessively brutal, or both, there is a 5% chance that a courteous and obediant citizen may suffer some harm when stopped. On the other hand, there is probably a 99% chance that a citizen who refuses to obey and attacks an officer is going to get hurt or killed. Given the choice of how to behave, I will take the 5% alternative every time. And it is very likely that the unfortunate Sean Bell unwisely trod the 99% path.
Why, then, do we continually criticize our police and cripple them with absurdly restrictive rules of operation? Why do we refuse to accept the consequences of our own actions? Why do we refuse to teach ourselves and our children to behave properly when approached by the law? Those who are so eager to deny any ownership of the problem and who rush to blame it all on "racists" are the real racists and the real villains.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Classical Music on the Web
I don’t know if you ever listen to classical music on your computer, or not. Even though the fidelity is limited by the (cheap) speakers on my machine, I used to open Windows Media Player, click on the radio tab, and select from the 10 classical music links that were offered by MSN. Usually, I chose “Mostly Classical,” which is offered by sky.fm. This gave me an alternative to cranking up the big stereo and listening to the local stations.
When I went to do that today, the Windows Media Player radio tab popped up an offer for a free trial of Napster, eventually, leading, they hope, to a paid subscription. The list of MSN stations is apparently no longer available. I guess Microsoft thinks that I want to pay for my radio music.
At first, I googled and accessed the sky.fm site, and found Mostly Classical, which opens just fine in Media Player. Problem solved.
Then, I did some more searching and found the following page, which attempts to list and link to ALL of the classical music stations that are available on the web: http://www.classicalwebcast.com/usa.htm. Now I have an even wider choice than MSN used to offer.
For those of you who listen on your computers, I am also putting the link in my side bar.
When I went to do that today, the Windows Media Player radio tab popped up an offer for a free trial of Napster, eventually, leading, they hope, to a paid subscription. The list of MSN stations is apparently no longer available. I guess Microsoft thinks that I want to pay for my radio music.
At first, I googled and accessed the sky.fm site, and found Mostly Classical, which opens just fine in Media Player. Problem solved.
Then, I did some more searching and found the following page, which attempts to list and link to ALL of the classical music stations that are available on the web: http://www.classicalwebcast.com/usa.htm. Now I have an even wider choice than MSN used to offer.
For those of you who listen on your computers, I am also putting the link in my side bar.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
More Classical CD Sources
I stopped into my local (liquidating) Tower Records last week, to see if I could pick up a bargain or two. The classical CD section was pretty well picked over. There were a few items of mild interest to me, but the deal was 40% off normal retail--not that great. By the time the prices are low enough to be tempting, I suspect that the ones I want will be long gone.
My continuing search for on-line CD resources has produced some more possiblities. I have added two, Buy.com and CD Universe, to the links in my side bar. I did not add a couple of sources I found that were based in Europe, however, because the combination of currency conversion and shipping costs makes the prices too high for comfort.
My continuing search for on-line CD resources has produced some more possiblities. I have added two, Buy.com and CD Universe, to the links in my side bar. I did not add a couple of sources I found that were based in Europe, however, because the combination of currency conversion and shipping costs makes the prices too high for comfort.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Fairness in Taxation
Newell S. Gragg, an enrolled agent in Ventura, California wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Times in which he plead the case for fairer taxation. His examples demonstrate a point that follows up on my post on 'those overpaid executives.'
Mr. Gragg's first example: A waitress, filing as single and earning $7.50 per hour in 2006, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, will have an income of 15,600. On that income she will pay $749.00 in federal income tax, $967.00 in Social Security tax, $226.00 in Medicate tax, $36.00 in California state income tax, and $125.00 for a total of $2,103.00, plus whatever additional tax she will have to pay on her tips. Over 13% of her income goes to taxes.
I modified Mr. Graggs's second hypothetical example, to tie it to my previous post.
Suppose that a wealthy CEO takes just $10 million out of his $495 million in salary and benefits, and invests it in California municipal bonds. That's about 2% of his total income. On that one investment, he will receive a tax-exempt income of $500,000 per year for the next 30 years. He will not have to work a single hour of a single day to receive that income, nor will he pay any taxes on it.
If the waitress has to pay taxes on her $15,600 income, why should not the (now retired) CEO have to pay taxes on the $500,000 per year?
Answer: Because wealthy folks like him write our tax laws.
Our wealthy legislators know that few people who live entirely on salaries can afford to buy municipal bonds. That is only one of several types of income that are only available to the weathy, and that have been exempted by law from federal and state income taxes. Why, after all, should they pay income tax at 38% on capital gains from the sale of stock or a house when the law that they wrote lets them pay 15% capital gains tax on it? The waitress, of course, will never have a house or stocks to sell for a capital gain, nor will she own municipal bonds in any significant quantity.
And what percentage of the CEO's $500,000 annual income from bonds will go to social security and medicare taxes?
So the earned wages of most folks are heavily taxed, while the coupons clipped by the wealthy are virtually tax exempt.
Of course, the CEO will no doubt spend some of his tax-free income on a restaurant meal so that our waitress will have a salary, and maybe even a tip to pay taxes on--that's part of the "trickle down"--how considerate indeed.
Mr. Gragg's first example: A waitress, filing as single and earning $7.50 per hour in 2006, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, will have an income of 15,600. On that income she will pay $749.00 in federal income tax, $967.00 in Social Security tax, $226.00 in Medicate tax, $36.00 in California state income tax, and $125.00 for a total of $2,103.00, plus whatever additional tax she will have to pay on her tips. Over 13% of her income goes to taxes.
I modified Mr. Graggs's second hypothetical example, to tie it to my previous post.
Suppose that a wealthy CEO takes just $10 million out of his $495 million in salary and benefits, and invests it in California municipal bonds. That's about 2% of his total income. On that one investment, he will receive a tax-exempt income of $500,000 per year for the next 30 years. He will not have to work a single hour of a single day to receive that income, nor will he pay any taxes on it.
If the waitress has to pay taxes on her $15,600 income, why should not the (now retired) CEO have to pay taxes on the $500,000 per year?
Answer: Because wealthy folks like him write our tax laws.
Our wealthy legislators know that few people who live entirely on salaries can afford to buy municipal bonds. That is only one of several types of income that are only available to the weathy, and that have been exempted by law from federal and state income taxes. Why, after all, should they pay income tax at 38% on capital gains from the sale of stock or a house when the law that they wrote lets them pay 15% capital gains tax on it? The waitress, of course, will never have a house or stocks to sell for a capital gain, nor will she own municipal bonds in any significant quantity.
And what percentage of the CEO's $500,000 annual income from bonds will go to social security and medicare taxes?
So the earned wages of most folks are heavily taxed, while the coupons clipped by the wealthy are virtually tax exempt.
Of course, the CEO will no doubt spend some of his tax-free income on a restaurant meal so that our waitress will have a salary, and maybe even a tip to pay taxes on--that's part of the "trickle down"--how considerate indeed.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Those Overpaid Executives
Barry Diller, CEO if IAC/Interactive received $469 million last year. At the same time, shareholders in his company lost 7.7% on their investments. Outsize pay for poor performance may seem inexplicable, until you understand that Diller owns 56 per cent of the voting stock in IAC. In essence, he chooses the board members who decide his pay. IAC claims that the generous compensation package was needed to "motivate Mr. Diller for the future." $150,000 per hour is pretty good motivation. Motivation, I presume, to guide the company to another year of 7.7 per cent losses?
And then, of course, there was the example of Kenneth Lay at Enron.
After all, obscene pay is the rule rather than the exception in the executive suite. These days, the average CEO pockets 369 times as much as the average worker, up from 36 times in 1976. Does anyone believe for a minute that these CEOs also pay 369 times as much income tax as the average workers? Do they contribute 369 times as much as average workers contribute to charities?
This executive overpayment is exceeded in absurdity only by the ridiculous amounts that we pay to athletes and entertainers, who contribute even less to society than the CEOs. The only consolation is that the athletes and entertainers also do less damage.
In the meanwhile, the individuals who have truly contributed to the advancement, health, and well-being of mankind, the Salks, the Schweitzers, hundreds of social workers, fire fighters, educators, and their kind live relatively humble, simple, and uncluttered lives.
All of the excess wealth, literally billions of dollars, could be being used to provide health care for the indigent, to provided food and shelter for the homeless, or to develop alternative fuels to replace oil. There are dozens of beneficial uses. Instead, the money goes to the purchase of multiple mansions with entertainment centers, fine clothes, multiple fancy automobiles, yachts, airplanes, gambling, and all of that sort of conspicuous consumption. Or it is hidden in offshore accounts, only to be handed later to lazy, shiftless offspring for more wasteful spending. Ironically, the super-rich are able to rationalize all of this, to ignore the people that they have injured as they amassed their fortunes.
No human being really earns or deserves the enormous masses of wealth these gluttonous individuals accumulate unto themselves. Only a few of them, like Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey recognize the need to share their wealth with the people who truly need it.
For the others, the internal lust for money and power makes them the most selfish and heartless individuals on earth. Nothing they are doing or will do can compensate for the harm they have done, for the livelihoods that they have ruined or stolen.
But where is the public outcry? Do our legislators speak up? Do we see proposed legislation to eliminate these tremendous sumps of human greed? Of course not--most of our legislators are themselves recipients of gigantic paychecks, executive perks, and generous (non-Social Security) pension rewards. The greedy are too busy amassing their own fortunes to punish each other.
Surely, each of us looks out for himself first. Most of us work hard to establish a degree of security and comfort for self and family. Once we achieve that in a reasonable, moderate degree, we should turn our efforts toward helping others achieve the same. When we figure out how to eliminate, or at least to punish, unbridled human greed for power and fortune, we will be on our way to solving many of mankind's most irksome problems.
And then, of course, there was the example of Kenneth Lay at Enron.
After all, obscene pay is the rule rather than the exception in the executive suite. These days, the average CEO pockets 369 times as much as the average worker, up from 36 times in 1976. Does anyone believe for a minute that these CEOs also pay 369 times as much income tax as the average workers? Do they contribute 369 times as much as average workers contribute to charities?
This executive overpayment is exceeded in absurdity only by the ridiculous amounts that we pay to athletes and entertainers, who contribute even less to society than the CEOs. The only consolation is that the athletes and entertainers also do less damage.
In the meanwhile, the individuals who have truly contributed to the advancement, health, and well-being of mankind, the Salks, the Schweitzers, hundreds of social workers, fire fighters, educators, and their kind live relatively humble, simple, and uncluttered lives.
All of the excess wealth, literally billions of dollars, could be being used to provide health care for the indigent, to provided food and shelter for the homeless, or to develop alternative fuels to replace oil. There are dozens of beneficial uses. Instead, the money goes to the purchase of multiple mansions with entertainment centers, fine clothes, multiple fancy automobiles, yachts, airplanes, gambling, and all of that sort of conspicuous consumption. Or it is hidden in offshore accounts, only to be handed later to lazy, shiftless offspring for more wasteful spending. Ironically, the super-rich are able to rationalize all of this, to ignore the people that they have injured as they amassed their fortunes.
No human being really earns or deserves the enormous masses of wealth these gluttonous individuals accumulate unto themselves. Only a few of them, like Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey recognize the need to share their wealth with the people who truly need it.
For the others, the internal lust for money and power makes them the most selfish and heartless individuals on earth. Nothing they are doing or will do can compensate for the harm they have done, for the livelihoods that they have ruined or stolen.
But where is the public outcry? Do our legislators speak up? Do we see proposed legislation to eliminate these tremendous sumps of human greed? Of course not--most of our legislators are themselves recipients of gigantic paychecks, executive perks, and generous (non-Social Security) pension rewards. The greedy are too busy amassing their own fortunes to punish each other.
Surely, each of us looks out for himself first. Most of us work hard to establish a degree of security and comfort for self and family. Once we achieve that in a reasonable, moderate degree, we should turn our efforts toward helping others achieve the same. When we figure out how to eliminate, or at least to punish, unbridled human greed for power and fortune, we will be on our way to solving many of mankind's most irksome problems.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Oh, Really, Michael?
Michael Moore first got my attention with his film Roger and Me. At the time, I was employed by Hughes Aircraft, which was owned by General Motors. Moore's depiction of Roger Smith taking home a big salary and attending lush parties while he closed plants, fired workers, and had the sherriff evict them from their homes was full of hyperbole, but it rang true for me. Little has changed on the corporate scene since then. CEOs still close plants, then take gigantic salaries and bonuses. Even those who fail to turn a company around leave with huge separation packages. For most of them, "turn a company around" really means cut the quality of the product or service, lay off lots of people, and take home a few million dollars. There are still a lot of Roger Smiths out there.
But since then, I have liked Michael Moore less and less. I think his success went to his head. He started attacking a lot of other things with the same gusto, comedy, and hyperbole. Unfortunately, they are things that he knows little about, and seems to understand even less. He has embraced the radical end of the left wing, and not done very will at it.
On Friday, November 17, 2006, an Op-ed piece by Michael Moore appeared in the Los Angeles Times. It is cast as a pledge from a liberal to the conservatives who just lost control of the House and the Senate. He makes 12 promises to treat conservatives fairly. Michael Moore's Pledge
His usual hyperbole, though, gives the pledge an obsequious tone. While some of the 12 promises seem earnest enough, some ring hollow for me. Recent words from Michael and his companions contradict them. The pledges are summarized below, along with some parenthetic remarks added to those that do not ring true to me.
1. We will always respect you. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us... [We reserve the right, however, to investigate the living daylights out of those of you we don't like. And we will start impeachment proceedings on Bush as soon as we can]
2. We will let you marry whomever you want...Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims, or to enrich our friends...[But we will be raising taxes for our health and education programs, and Sen. Murtha will continue to see that defense contracts are awarded to companies that subcontract in his district, regardless of price and technical merit.]
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home for Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home too...[and we will leave the Shiites and the Sunnis to kill each other and the Kurds--that's their tough luck]...We promise never to send your kids off to war based on some amateur Power Point presentation cooked up by men who have never been to war. [this one is too ludicrous for comment]
5. We will make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage...you too will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay...[we promise to make your children and your grandchildren pay for this one] ...And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases...we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family too.
6. When we clean up our air and water, you too will be able to breath the cleaner air and drink purer water...[children and grandchildren, open up your pocketbooks again]...and when we put an end to global warming...[hey, Michael, get that magic wand out!]
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down...Imediately. We will protect you. [I don't believe it--you had opportunities to track him down before he killed 3,000 people, and you blew them.]
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter...
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will raise it for your employees, too...[and hundreds of small businesses will fold, large businesses will outsource offshore and have layoffs; fewer people will have jobs, and prices will go up. We will just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.]
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't practice them...We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone...[But of course, we will keep God out of the schools, remove his name and words from public buildings, and keep him confined to inside your churches and temples where he belongs]
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and break the law. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side first...[Wonderful!! May I send you a list? Start with John Murtha]
So, in summary, I accept #2, #8, #9, and #12. I can also accept #5 and #6, but they totally invalidate #3. While I would like to accept #1, #3, #7, and #11, I just don't believe that you will do what you say in them. Finally, #4 and #10 are off the chart, wrong. So, sorry Michael, you only bat about .500 on this one.
But since then, I have liked Michael Moore less and less. I think his success went to his head. He started attacking a lot of other things with the same gusto, comedy, and hyperbole. Unfortunately, they are things that he knows little about, and seems to understand even less. He has embraced the radical end of the left wing, and not done very will at it.
On Friday, November 17, 2006, an Op-ed piece by Michael Moore appeared in the Los Angeles Times. It is cast as a pledge from a liberal to the conservatives who just lost control of the House and the Senate. He makes 12 promises to treat conservatives fairly. Michael Moore's Pledge
His usual hyperbole, though, gives the pledge an obsequious tone. While some of the 12 promises seem earnest enough, some ring hollow for me. Recent words from Michael and his companions contradict them. The pledges are summarized below, along with some parenthetic remarks added to those that do not ring true to me.
1. We will always respect you. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us... [We reserve the right, however, to investigate the living daylights out of those of you we don't like. And we will start impeachment proceedings on Bush as soon as we can]
2. We will let you marry whomever you want...Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims, or to enrich our friends...[But we will be raising taxes for our health and education programs, and Sen. Murtha will continue to see that defense contracts are awarded to companies that subcontract in his district, regardless of price and technical merit.]
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home for Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home too...[and we will leave the Shiites and the Sunnis to kill each other and the Kurds--that's their tough luck]...We promise never to send your kids off to war based on some amateur Power Point presentation cooked up by men who have never been to war. [this one is too ludicrous for comment]
5. We will make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage...you too will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay...[we promise to make your children and your grandchildren pay for this one] ...And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases...we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family too.
6. When we clean up our air and water, you too will be able to breath the cleaner air and drink purer water...[children and grandchildren, open up your pocketbooks again]...and when we put an end to global warming...[hey, Michael, get that magic wand out!]
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down...Imediately. We will protect you. [I don't believe it--you had opportunities to track him down before he killed 3,000 people, and you blew them.]
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter...
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will raise it for your employees, too...[and hundreds of small businesses will fold, large businesses will outsource offshore and have layoffs; fewer people will have jobs, and prices will go up. We will just pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.]
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't practice them...We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone...[But of course, we will keep God out of the schools, remove his name and words from public buildings, and keep him confined to inside your churches and temples where he belongs]
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and break the law. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side first...[Wonderful!! May I send you a list? Start with John Murtha]
So, in summary, I accept #2, #8, #9, and #12. I can also accept #5 and #6, but they totally invalidate #3. While I would like to accept #1, #3, #7, and #11, I just don't believe that you will do what you say in them. Finally, #4 and #10 are off the chart, wrong. So, sorry Michael, you only bat about .500 on this one.
The Consequence of No Respect: Tabatabainejad
The campus police at UCLA routinely check the identification of people in the library after 11:00 p.m. to ensure that they are authorized to be there. Students at UCLA should be aware that this practice is for the sole purpose of ensuring their safety.
Most police agencies allow officers to use Tasers only if a suspect poses a physical threat, or is acting combatively. But UCLA police are also permitted to use Tasers on passive resisters as a pain compliance technique. They use the device in a stun mode, which affects only the part of the body being touched, as opposed to disabling the person entirely. The students at UCLA may or may not have been aware of this policy before an incident involving Mostafa Tabatabainejad. They are aware of it now, and many don't like it.
On Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006, at about 11:00 p.m., community service officers and UCLA police asked Mostafa Tabatabainejad several times to show them his student identification. Mostafa repeatedly refused. He shouted at the officers. When officers tried to take him out, he fell limp. At that point, the officers shocked him with the Taser.
Students are outraged. They demanded an investigation. They are marching to protest the use of Tasers. And they are all totally oblivious to the fact that Mostafa, and Mostafa alone is the one person who could avoided the whole thing.
FACT: When a person complies with the law, when he listens to, respects, and obeys a police officer, when he does not actively or passively resist the directions of the police, the Tasers do not appear. Any pain that Mostafa suffered is the result of his stupid response to a simple request from the officer.
It's not hard--all he had to do was this:
Officer: It is after 11:00 p.m. Please show me your student identification.
Student: Yes, sir. (he fumbles in his pockets, checks his billfold) I can't seem to find it, sir. I must have left it in my room.
Officer: I'm sorry, but you will have to leave the library. If you locate your identification card, you may return and use the library. That is the policy.
Student: Yes sir, I understand. I will get my I.D. before I come back. Thank you sir. (student exits the library)
Gosh, that's easy. It's the same formula I put in my post about respecting the police. Be polite, do what the officer asks, and all is fine.
But for so many misguided souls like Mostafa, self is all-important. The authorities are wrong. They are prejudiced. They just want to make life inconvenient for us. We don't have to listen to anyone, because we know better.
Sure, it's possible that the officer may have been 'profiling' when he selected this student. Sure, the school policy seems to be more of an inconvenience than a protection. Maybe the Taser is too strong a weapon for the UCLA police to use, or the policy for its use is too broad. But those are topics for another time, another place, and for a school administrator, not for the officer. It is self-defeating to bring the tension of those thoughts into the simple process of checking a student ID at the library.
If the student does set those issues aside, and respectfully obeys the officer, nothing bad happens at the library. The student can bring those issues up another day in the office of a dean or an advisor.
A little good and and much bad come from the incident. The good is that an investigation will be conducted to see if the officers involved did exceed their authority. The bad is that student groups, the media, and the ACLU are blowing the incident out of proportion. They are stirring up a pile of irrelevant issues. And they will teach a few more idiots that its all right to resist a police officer.
Most police agencies allow officers to use Tasers only if a suspect poses a physical threat, or is acting combatively. But UCLA police are also permitted to use Tasers on passive resisters as a pain compliance technique. They use the device in a stun mode, which affects only the part of the body being touched, as opposed to disabling the person entirely. The students at UCLA may or may not have been aware of this policy before an incident involving Mostafa Tabatabainejad. They are aware of it now, and many don't like it.
On Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006, at about 11:00 p.m., community service officers and UCLA police asked Mostafa Tabatabainejad several times to show them his student identification. Mostafa repeatedly refused. He shouted at the officers. When officers tried to take him out, he fell limp. At that point, the officers shocked him with the Taser.
Students are outraged. They demanded an investigation. They are marching to protest the use of Tasers. And they are all totally oblivious to the fact that Mostafa, and Mostafa alone is the one person who could avoided the whole thing.
FACT: When a person complies with the law, when he listens to, respects, and obeys a police officer, when he does not actively or passively resist the directions of the police, the Tasers do not appear. Any pain that Mostafa suffered is the result of his stupid response to a simple request from the officer.
It's not hard--all he had to do was this:
Officer: It is after 11:00 p.m. Please show me your student identification.
Student: Yes, sir. (he fumbles in his pockets, checks his billfold) I can't seem to find it, sir. I must have left it in my room.
Officer: I'm sorry, but you will have to leave the library. If you locate your identification card, you may return and use the library. That is the policy.
Student: Yes sir, I understand. I will get my I.D. before I come back. Thank you sir. (student exits the library)
Gosh, that's easy. It's the same formula I put in my post about respecting the police. Be polite, do what the officer asks, and all is fine.
But for so many misguided souls like Mostafa, self is all-important. The authorities are wrong. They are prejudiced. They just want to make life inconvenient for us. We don't have to listen to anyone, because we know better.
Sure, it's possible that the officer may have been 'profiling' when he selected this student. Sure, the school policy seems to be more of an inconvenience than a protection. Maybe the Taser is too strong a weapon for the UCLA police to use, or the policy for its use is too broad. But those are topics for another time, another place, and for a school administrator, not for the officer. It is self-defeating to bring the tension of those thoughts into the simple process of checking a student ID at the library.
If the student does set those issues aside, and respectfully obeys the officer, nothing bad happens at the library. The student can bring those issues up another day in the office of a dean or an advisor.
A little good and and much bad come from the incident. The good is that an investigation will be conducted to see if the officers involved did exceed their authority. The bad is that student groups, the media, and the ACLU are blowing the incident out of proportion. They are stirring up a pile of irrelevant issues. And they will teach a few more idiots that its all right to resist a police officer.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Respect for the Police
We hire policemen in our society to protect us from those individuals who would harm us, to preserve order and civility in our society, to ensure that the laws of community and country are enforced, and to help us when we are in trouble.
I was taught to respect any police officer who approached me. I was taught to assume that a policeman is acting in my best interest, that is, to protect me from harm, or to keep me from breaking a law. I was a taught that policemen are human; they make mistakes. On occasion, there may be a "bad" policeman who abuses his authority, or treats people badly for no apparent reason. If I believe that a police officer is making a mistake in his dealings with me, I first comply with his requests, then politely suggest that there may be a misunderstanding. I was taught that the worst thing a policeman may do is issue a citation to me, or ask that I go to the police station. In any case, there eventually will be a time and a place for me to present my side of the story. I believe these teachings to be true, and I have never had unpleasant dealings with a police officer, even when I thought him to be wrong. Some people even refer to a policeman as "an officer of the peace."
There are many Americans who have not been taught this way about the police. For some, it is because their parents did not bother to teach them, or because their parents did not hold those beliefs. For others, it is because they have immigrated from a society in which the police do not act in a way that benefits the society as a whole. Whatever the reason, they do not understand how different the role of a policeman in our country is from that in other societies. When these people are approached by a policeman, they may try to run in fear, to resist apprehension, or to act with disrespect to the officer. What these people fail to understand is that their manner and behavior are actually threatening to the officer; they appear to be the actions of a lawbreaker.
As a physical scientist, I never believed much in the phenomenon of a "aura," or in the transfer of "negative energy," or "positive energy" from one being to another. But in working with my pet dogs recently, I observed that their behavior often reflects not just my actions, but my state of mind. It's possible, I suppose, that they read my body language, much like a poker player reads his opponents' "tells." But whatever it is, I believe that people have a similar ability to sense states of calmness and agitation in each other, even without words being spoken. Words and actions amplify the message, of course. We can expect that from the first moment of contact, a police officer is trying to read our energy. For our own good, we should project positive energy.
In all this we see the root cause of the many incidents we have read about that involve shootings, tasering, or beatings of individuals by police officers. Among the millions of encounters between policemen and individual citizens, only a handful result in unneccesary or excessive violence on the part of the officer. In nearly all of those incidents, the alleged "victim" has only himself to blame, because he has acted unwisely. Avoiding this situation is not difficult: when approached by an officer, do not run away; when an officer asks for identification, give it to him; if the tells you to sit, sit. He will tell you why he has approached you. If you believe he is wrong, you can calmly and politely explain your position, when he asks you to. He may say, "tell it to the judge," --the best response is "Yes, sir."
On the other hand, if you try to run away, the officer will chase you, and restrain you. If you shout and make threatening gestures at him, he will use force to make you stop, and then restrain you. In short, if you are a violent criminal, a policeman will treat you like one; if you behave like a violent criminal, he will treat you like one. If a policeman perceives that force is not necessary, he will not use force.
I have no sympathy for a criminal who brings harsh police treatment upon himself. I have little sympathy for an idiot who behaves like a criminal even when he has done nothing wrong. A person has no constitutional right to behave like a wild man, shout, and threaten people. If someone acts that way, I expect a policeman to use whatever force is necessary to protect me from him.
So we need to act with civility. And we should not lay blame on the officers who discipline those who are not civil. Let us not make "victims" out of our criminals.
I was taught to respect any police officer who approached me. I was taught to assume that a policeman is acting in my best interest, that is, to protect me from harm, or to keep me from breaking a law. I was a taught that policemen are human; they make mistakes. On occasion, there may be a "bad" policeman who abuses his authority, or treats people badly for no apparent reason. If I believe that a police officer is making a mistake in his dealings with me, I first comply with his requests, then politely suggest that there may be a misunderstanding. I was taught that the worst thing a policeman may do is issue a citation to me, or ask that I go to the police station. In any case, there eventually will be a time and a place for me to present my side of the story. I believe these teachings to be true, and I have never had unpleasant dealings with a police officer, even when I thought him to be wrong. Some people even refer to a policeman as "an officer of the peace."
There are many Americans who have not been taught this way about the police. For some, it is because their parents did not bother to teach them, or because their parents did not hold those beliefs. For others, it is because they have immigrated from a society in which the police do not act in a way that benefits the society as a whole. Whatever the reason, they do not understand how different the role of a policeman in our country is from that in other societies. When these people are approached by a policeman, they may try to run in fear, to resist apprehension, or to act with disrespect to the officer. What these people fail to understand is that their manner and behavior are actually threatening to the officer; they appear to be the actions of a lawbreaker.
As a physical scientist, I never believed much in the phenomenon of a "aura," or in the transfer of "negative energy," or "positive energy" from one being to another. But in working with my pet dogs recently, I observed that their behavior often reflects not just my actions, but my state of mind. It's possible, I suppose, that they read my body language, much like a poker player reads his opponents' "tells." But whatever it is, I believe that people have a similar ability to sense states of calmness and agitation in each other, even without words being spoken. Words and actions amplify the message, of course. We can expect that from the first moment of contact, a police officer is trying to read our energy. For our own good, we should project positive energy.
In all this we see the root cause of the many incidents we have read about that involve shootings, tasering, or beatings of individuals by police officers. Among the millions of encounters between policemen and individual citizens, only a handful result in unneccesary or excessive violence on the part of the officer. In nearly all of those incidents, the alleged "victim" has only himself to blame, because he has acted unwisely. Avoiding this situation is not difficult: when approached by an officer, do not run away; when an officer asks for identification, give it to him; if the tells you to sit, sit. He will tell you why he has approached you. If you believe he is wrong, you can calmly and politely explain your position, when he asks you to. He may say, "tell it to the judge," --the best response is "Yes, sir."
On the other hand, if you try to run away, the officer will chase you, and restrain you. If you shout and make threatening gestures at him, he will use force to make you stop, and then restrain you. In short, if you are a violent criminal, a policeman will treat you like one; if you behave like a violent criminal, he will treat you like one. If a policeman perceives that force is not necessary, he will not use force.
I have no sympathy for a criminal who brings harsh police treatment upon himself. I have little sympathy for an idiot who behaves like a criminal even when he has done nothing wrong. A person has no constitutional right to behave like a wild man, shout, and threaten people. If someone acts that way, I expect a policeman to use whatever force is necessary to protect me from him.
So we need to act with civility. And we should not lay blame on the officers who discipline those who are not civil. Let us not make "victims" out of our criminals.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Compromises on Illegal Immigration
I keep discussing illegal immigration because the issue is one of the top 3 issues facing our country today. As a social and economic issue, it is the perfect example of a problem whose solution cries for compromise.
At one pole on this issue are some xenophobes who say, "Our country is full; no more immigration, period." At the other pole are those who say, "We need all the workers we can get; open up the borders and let in anybody and everybody who wants to come."
The real solution is somewhere near the (metaphorical) fence that runs somewhere between the two poles. By custom and tradition, every nation has laws regarding how many people enter the nation, for what purposes they are permitted to enter, how long they are permitted to stay, and whether are not they may become citizens.
So let's get this straight from the beginning: The big concern today is NOT about immigration. The big concern today is about people who enter the country without following the laws set forth for immigration; it is about
illegal immigration.
The people at the "let everybody in" pole on this issue want to deny the existence of the term illegal immigrants. THEY WANT TO ABOLISH IMMIGRATION LAW ENTIRELY. They insist that EVERYONE who does not share their view is a xenophobe who resides at the opposite pole. Whenever they talk about the issue, they omit the word illegal and try to cast the issue in the general term, immigration. These people live at the pole; they are unwilling to compromise. They do not offer a workable solution.
The problem is complicated by the fact that our nation has not been enforcing its immigration laws. As a result, about 12 million illegal aliens reside in our country; some have lived here for many years. Enforcement of the existing laws or, tightening them, will create undue hardship for some of these illegals. Therefore, the compromise that resolves the problem should include some consideration of the needs of these people
Fortunately, it appears that the current trend in Washington is toward a compromise. We will resume control of entry into the country. We need to do that in order to keep our citizens employed, to reduce the strain on taxpayer funded services, and, most important, to refuse entry to those who may subvert and destroy our society.
I've discussed an approach in a previous post; it is a compromise that includes the following:
At one pole on this issue are some xenophobes who say, "Our country is full; no more immigration, period." At the other pole are those who say, "We need all the workers we can get; open up the borders and let in anybody and everybody who wants to come."
The real solution is somewhere near the (metaphorical) fence that runs somewhere between the two poles. By custom and tradition, every nation has laws regarding how many people enter the nation, for what purposes they are permitted to enter, how long they are permitted to stay, and whether are not they may become citizens.
So let's get this straight from the beginning: The big concern today is NOT about immigration. The big concern today is about people who enter the country without following the laws set forth for immigration; it is about
illegal immigration.
The people at the "let everybody in" pole on this issue want to deny the existence of the term illegal immigrants. THEY WANT TO ABOLISH IMMIGRATION LAW ENTIRELY. They insist that EVERYONE who does not share their view is a xenophobe who resides at the opposite pole. Whenever they talk about the issue, they omit the word illegal and try to cast the issue in the general term, immigration. These people live at the pole; they are unwilling to compromise. They do not offer a workable solution.
The problem is complicated by the fact that our nation has not been enforcing its immigration laws. As a result, about 12 million illegal aliens reside in our country; some have lived here for many years. Enforcement of the existing laws or, tightening them, will create undue hardship for some of these illegals. Therefore, the compromise that resolves the problem should include some consideration of the needs of these people
Fortunately, it appears that the current trend in Washington is toward a compromise. We will resume control of entry into the country. We need to do that in order to keep our citizens employed, to reduce the strain on taxpayer funded services, and, most important, to refuse entry to those who may subvert and destroy our society.
I've discussed an approach in a previous post; it is a compromise that includes the following:
- Rigidly control entry to the country. Some will disagree with me, but I believe this requires a physical wall and/or a fence in addition to more manpower and some "high-tech" solutions.
- Establish and enforce valid reasons for entry to the country, including but not necessarily limited to site-seeing, attending school, working on temporary jobs. Insist that aliens provide address or addresses where they can be reached during their stay, and enforce the expiration dates on the visas.
- Penalize employers who hire aliens that have not complied with the immigration laws, that is, illegal aliens.
- For the illegal aliens that are already in the country, set up some guidelines that will allow some of them a reasonable way to remain in the country and become citizens. Criteria can include, but need not be limited to: a minimum length of continuous residence, demonstrated compliance with all of our laws (except, of course, the one on illegal entry), payment of all back taxes, payment of a fine for breaking the immigration law, a deadline for meeting requirements of citizenship, including a knowledge of our history, laws, and language.
- Permanently deport the illegal aliens who do not satisfy the criteria established above.
Now it's time for Congress to stop pandering to the polar extremists, and get to work on that compromise. It's not that difficult, really.
The Importance of Compromise
The most depressing and aggravating aspect of politics has been polarization. It seems that our most outspoken and strident minorities live their political lives at one or the other of the poles. Their blood runs hot and their emotions run high. They shout and they refuse to listen. They call everyone who disagrees with them liars and scoundrels (and other more vicious names). The few politicians who have been seeking compromise (Joe Lieberman and John McCain, for example) have suffered derision and rejection by members of their own parties because the voices of the parties are the voices of the polar extremists within the parties.
Now that the Democrats have won control of the House and the Senate, we are hearing the word, compromise, from members of both parties more often. The members of the polar minorities are sure that this is an empty gesture of politeness; that we will soon get back to (polarized) business as usual. I hope they are wrong; that the desire to compromise is genuine.
Most social and economic issues are complex, made up of many related small problems. The solutions to these issues will serve us all better if compromises are part of those solutions. This is the hardest part of social problem solving. The best answers to those many small problems do not always sit exactly on the fence that runs between the two sides of the issue. Most of them fall a short distance from one side of the fence or the other. A social issue is most satisfactorily resolved when some of the selected answers are on both sides of the fence, and roughly the same distance from the fence. The solution is not perfect; everyone will see some flaws in it. But they can live with it, and see a general improvement from it.
I hope that we see some compromises. I hope that the word and the process that it represents remain a part of our political life for some time to come.
Now that the Democrats have won control of the House and the Senate, we are hearing the word, compromise, from members of both parties more often. The members of the polar minorities are sure that this is an empty gesture of politeness; that we will soon get back to (polarized) business as usual. I hope they are wrong; that the desire to compromise is genuine.
Most social and economic issues are complex, made up of many related small problems. The solutions to these issues will serve us all better if compromises are part of those solutions. This is the hardest part of social problem solving. The best answers to those many small problems do not always sit exactly on the fence that runs between the two sides of the issue. Most of them fall a short distance from one side of the fence or the other. A social issue is most satisfactorily resolved when some of the selected answers are on both sides of the fence, and roughly the same distance from the fence. The solution is not perfect; everyone will see some flaws in it. But they can live with it, and see a general improvement from it.
I hope that we see some compromises. I hope that the word and the process that it represents remain a part of our political life for some time to come.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Clearing the Air on John Kerry's Statement
The election is over. Phil Angeledes lost his bid to be governor of California. Several Democrats won their bids to be members of Congress. In some ways, the nation will be better for that; in other ways perhaps not.
The biggest loser in the pre-election chaos was not even running for office: Senator John Kerry. He made a statement that got everybody talking. It came during a campaign rally for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. Because of the statement, the fine things that Kerry had to say about Angelides as a potential governer were not in the media reports.
Kerry claims that his statement was misinterpreted by his critics. Under pressure, Kerry stated he is sorry that some may have not understood that he was really criticizing President Bush and not our troops in Iraq.
One of my close friends supported Kerry's position, saying that Bush and his cronies intentially ignored Kerry's first comment, and used the mis-statement to inflame the opposition.
Since I was not there, and did not know for certain, I found a video of the speech on Kerry's web site. I watched the video to determine exactly what was said.
Kerry opened his speech at Pasadena City College with some one-liners. He said that Bush had lived in Texas but now "lives in a state of denial, a state of deception." Kerry went on to say that he was glad to be here [in California]. He then said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
There it is, the joke about President Bush, followed by compliment to the audience, and then the statement about education. Nothing really links the two jokes, except the emotional responses of Kerry's defenders. Some have pointed out that Kerry did not follow the exact written text of the speech, which contained words to the effect, "...if you don't, you get us stuck in Iraq," which would certainly have been a criticism of the president.
I firmly believe that criticism of President Bush was the intent of the two jokes. But that is not what Kerry said. I also believe that Kerry's slip was a Freudian one. Kerry's past statements and actions demonstrate his profound dislike of war and anyone who participates in it. He also dismisses those who disagree with him, calling them liars, and treating them as his intellectual and social inferiors.
A double standard prevails when it comes to botched jokes in political discourse. If a person inadvertantly makes a statement that denigrates another person's race, religion, or ethnicity, his apology is never accepted. The argument is that the slip of the tongue unmasks the speaker's "true inner self." Therefore, speaker is a bigot, never to be trusted again. But when John Kerry makes a similar gaffe, it should be overlooked, or at least forgiven, primarily I guess, because all of us smart people should know how stupid and evil Bush is, and how brilliant and honorable John Kerry is.
I'm sorry guys, I don't buy it--you cannot have it both ways. The true inner self was unmasked.
The biggest loser in the pre-election chaos was not even running for office: Senator John Kerry. He made a statement that got everybody talking. It came during a campaign rally for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. Because of the statement, the fine things that Kerry had to say about Angelides as a potential governer were not in the media reports.
Kerry claims that his statement was misinterpreted by his critics. Under pressure, Kerry stated he is sorry that some may have not understood that he was really criticizing President Bush and not our troops in Iraq.
One of my close friends supported Kerry's position, saying that Bush and his cronies intentially ignored Kerry's first comment, and used the mis-statement to inflame the opposition.
Since I was not there, and did not know for certain, I found a video of the speech on Kerry's web site. I watched the video to determine exactly what was said.
Kerry opened his speech at Pasadena City College with some one-liners. He said that Bush had lived in Texas but now "lives in a state of denial, a state of deception." Kerry went on to say that he was glad to be here [in California]. He then said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
There it is, the joke about President Bush, followed by compliment to the audience, and then the statement about education. Nothing really links the two jokes, except the emotional responses of Kerry's defenders. Some have pointed out that Kerry did not follow the exact written text of the speech, which contained words to the effect, "...if you don't, you get us stuck in Iraq," which would certainly have been a criticism of the president.
I firmly believe that criticism of President Bush was the intent of the two jokes. But that is not what Kerry said. I also believe that Kerry's slip was a Freudian one. Kerry's past statements and actions demonstrate his profound dislike of war and anyone who participates in it. He also dismisses those who disagree with him, calling them liars, and treating them as his intellectual and social inferiors.
A double standard prevails when it comes to botched jokes in political discourse. If a person inadvertantly makes a statement that denigrates another person's race, religion, or ethnicity, his apology is never accepted. The argument is that the slip of the tongue unmasks the speaker's "true inner self." Therefore, speaker is a bigot, never to be trusted again. But when John Kerry makes a similar gaffe, it should be overlooked, or at least forgiven, primarily I guess, because all of us smart people should know how stupid and evil Bush is, and how brilliant and honorable John Kerry is.
I'm sorry guys, I don't buy it--you cannot have it both ways. The true inner self was unmasked.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Fixing the Iraq Mess
Now that the Democrats have won the House and the Senate, they should have President Bush's attention. Perhaps he will realize that he is in over his head in Iraq. Now is the time for Bush to take some actions that are long overdue.
1. Make sure that Secretary of Defense Gates listens to the suggestions of his field commanders, and follows through on some of them. Rumsefeld may have listened, but I don't see much evidence that he followed through on any of them.
2. Commit some more forces and better equipment to Iraq. The added troops will have some different objectives, but they are still needed. We need to show strength and determination, not weakness.
3. Locate and eliminate the bad guys. Start with Moqtada al-Sadr, and either jail or eliminate him. When is followers rise up, they are the bad guys we have been looking for; take care of them. If a replacement for al-Sadr appears, get rid of him, too. There are plenty of moderate leaders that can stand up for the Shiites.
4. Get the guns out of Dodge, or at least out of Bagdad. Disarm everyone but the Iraqi police. It's bad enough that we let the defeated soldiers keep their arms and pillage the arsenals, but our sloppy book-keeping has let U.S. weapons intended for the security forces disappear, probably into enemy hands. To the maximum extent possible, the disarmament should be accomplished by Iraqi police, not by U.S. troops.
5. Demand that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki order all his police to extinguish the "kundara game". [Mahmoud Mashadani, speaker of the Iraqi assembly stated, "Any law or decision that goes against Islam, we'll put it under the kundara!" Kundara means shoe, and now any Iraqi that sees or hears something he does not like, he threatens to put a kundara down someone's throat, or to hit someone with a kundara.] It's all part of the chaos.
6. Identify the police units, both Shiite and Sunni, that are acting as death squads; disarm and disband them. Select a few elite Iraqi police that have a demonstrated ability to identify and capture terrorsis; turn over local law enforcement to them. Gradually shift our troops' roles to an advisory capacity.
7. Avoid even the hint of a specific "timetable for US withdrawal." That notion is as silly as telling the firefighters at a forest fire to turn off their hoses and go home at 4:30.
8. Set specific objectives for the Iraqi government to accomplish in terms of security and control, and set dates for their completion. This is not a timetable for our withdrawal, but one for Iraqi government actions.
9. Give some consideration to the proposals to open discussions with Iran and Syria concerning the possibility of limited assistance in the establishment of order and security in Iraq. But beware, however, that both of those countries have their own agenda for Iraq, and they will not hesitate to deceive us as to their real intentions.
I know that just about anybody can raise one or more objections to some or all of the above proposals. And perhaps not all of them should be implemented. But some should be. The fact is that we have to stop throwing up barriers to action. We have to implement some actions that have the lesser drawbacks and move forward. It's not adequate to just say, "stop doing that." We must also say, "do this instead."
President Bush should not be looking for "victory" in Iraq, but rather for "success" in Iraq. The victory comes later, with the downfalls of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
1. Make sure that Secretary of Defense Gates listens to the suggestions of his field commanders, and follows through on some of them. Rumsefeld may have listened, but I don't see much evidence that he followed through on any of them.
2. Commit some more forces and better equipment to Iraq. The added troops will have some different objectives, but they are still needed. We need to show strength and determination, not weakness.
3. Locate and eliminate the bad guys. Start with Moqtada al-Sadr, and either jail or eliminate him. When is followers rise up, they are the bad guys we have been looking for; take care of them. If a replacement for al-Sadr appears, get rid of him, too. There are plenty of moderate leaders that can stand up for the Shiites.
4. Get the guns out of Dodge, or at least out of Bagdad. Disarm everyone but the Iraqi police. It's bad enough that we let the defeated soldiers keep their arms and pillage the arsenals, but our sloppy book-keeping has let U.S. weapons intended for the security forces disappear, probably into enemy hands. To the maximum extent possible, the disarmament should be accomplished by Iraqi police, not by U.S. troops.
5. Demand that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki order all his police to extinguish the "kundara game". [Mahmoud Mashadani, speaker of the Iraqi assembly stated, "Any law or decision that goes against Islam, we'll put it under the kundara!" Kundara means shoe, and now any Iraqi that sees or hears something he does not like, he threatens to put a kundara down someone's throat, or to hit someone with a kundara.] It's all part of the chaos.
6. Identify the police units, both Shiite and Sunni, that are acting as death squads; disarm and disband them. Select a few elite Iraqi police that have a demonstrated ability to identify and capture terrorsis; turn over local law enforcement to them. Gradually shift our troops' roles to an advisory capacity.
7. Avoid even the hint of a specific "timetable for US withdrawal." That notion is as silly as telling the firefighters at a forest fire to turn off their hoses and go home at 4:30.
8. Set specific objectives for the Iraqi government to accomplish in terms of security and control, and set dates for their completion. This is not a timetable for our withdrawal, but one for Iraqi government actions.
9. Give some consideration to the proposals to open discussions with Iran and Syria concerning the possibility of limited assistance in the establishment of order and security in Iraq. But beware, however, that both of those countries have their own agenda for Iraq, and they will not hesitate to deceive us as to their real intentions.
I know that just about anybody can raise one or more objections to some or all of the above proposals. And perhaps not all of them should be implemented. But some should be. The fact is that we have to stop throwing up barriers to action. We have to implement some actions that have the lesser drawbacks and move forward. It's not adequate to just say, "stop doing that." We must also say, "do this instead."
President Bush should not be looking for "victory" in Iraq, but rather for "success" in Iraq. The victory comes later, with the downfalls of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
More Music Sites
This month's American Record Guide contained advertisements from two companies that offer classical CDs for sale at their web sites, shopforte and ARSIS Audio. I added links to their sites to my side bar.
I also added iclassics. They have a good search capability for cds.
I also added iclassics. They have a good search capability for cds.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Some Thoughtful Commentary
Victor Davis Hanson is a professor emeritus of the classics. I mentioned Hanson before in my October 9 posting, See the enemy and his motivations clearly and do not dismiss them.
Hanson has written numerous books about the life and culture of the ancient Greeks. In retirement he has written some commentary on modern life that is balanced and analytical. He has some good insight into what makes a society great, and what tends to tear a society down. Here again is a link to his web site: Victor Davis Hanson
I have also placed a link on my side bar. The flaming left may brand him a conservative, but the articles in his archives exhibit a reasonably fair balance.
Hanson has written numerous books about the life and culture of the ancient Greeks. In retirement he has written some commentary on modern life that is balanced and analytical. He has some good insight into what makes a society great, and what tends to tear a society down. Here again is a link to his web site: Victor Davis Hanson
I have also placed a link on my side bar. The flaming left may brand him a conservative, but the articles in his archives exhibit a reasonably fair balance.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Magic Secrets Revealed
"All work and no play make Jack a dull boy."
I have added another link to my side bar that you may enjoy. "Magic and Tricks" reveals the secrets to some of the magic tricks that you may have seen recently. I hope that you enjoy the videos as much as I have.
I have added another link to my side bar that you may enjoy. "Magic and Tricks" reveals the secrets to some of the magic tricks that you may have seen recently. I hope that you enjoy the videos as much as I have.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Local Politics
Orange County, CA, still has a strong Republican presence. You can see for yourself at the Red County OC Blog link on my side bar.
One post on that blog takes a strong position on the campaign for State Attorney General: Retired Cop blasts COPS for endorsing Jerry Brown
For a while I thought that Jerry Brown was maturing a little bit, having learned from his mistakes. But I do not support him for Attorney General. Despite what he says, Jerry is still soft on crime, and, I suspect, he still supports the increases in taxes, wages, and restraints on business that have driven many companies to leave California. He is just not the kind of person that I would trust to apply the state laws with fairness and firmness.
One post on that blog takes a strong position on the campaign for State Attorney General: Retired Cop blasts COPS for endorsing Jerry Brown
For a while I thought that Jerry Brown was maturing a little bit, having learned from his mistakes. But I do not support him for Attorney General. Despite what he says, Jerry is still soft on crime, and, I suspect, he still supports the increases in taxes, wages, and restraints on business that have driven many companies to leave California. He is just not the kind of person that I would trust to apply the state laws with fairness and firmness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
