A series of articles in the Los Angeles times on the gradual disappearance of some independently owned book stores caused me to ponder the topic of the the ephemeral nature of human culture.
Few of the experiences, the discoveries, the reactions, the thoughts, the inventions, and the ideas of human beings through the ages have lasted very long. Early civilizations had no way of permanently recording their cultures; they passed them from generation to generation by word of mouth. Some of this valuable information has been lost and re-learned several times during the evolution of modern societies. Some information will never be retrieved from past cultures.
One of the earliest methods of recording culture proved to be one of the most durable: information carved into stone tablets. Records of that kind have survived for thousands of years (a mere instant in the time continuum of the universe). But the stone tablets are not very portable. Nor do they hold very much information. They are not easy to reproduce and make available to large numbers of people. But they do last a long time.
Recording methods that have been devised since the development of stone carving have greater capacity and are more convenient to use, but the trend is toward the less and less durable: stylus on wax tablet, ink on parchment, ink on linen paper, ink on paper from wood pulp. The advent of computers has increased our storage capacity for information, but made the data itself even more ephemeral. As storage media, magnetic disks and compact laser discs will probably not endure much longer than the highest quality written books. In addition, the electronic storage media require special complex machines to retrieve the data. Should some great catastrophe befall modern societies, the instructions to construct and use such machines will be locked in that same, inaccessible storage media.
This is not an alarmist cry for the preservation of books and bookstores in our society, and certainly not a call for a return to the use of stone tablets. I suspect that books will be available for many more years. There are many people in the world who are committed to preserving our knowledge for as long as possible. I am pointing, however, to some generally negative trends in modern societies.
One person wrote to the Times that retail bookstores are disappearing because it is so much easier and cheaper to find the books and obtain them on the internet. I find that I have said the same thing. I could wander through used bookstores for years before I would find a copy of an out-of-print book that I want. Or, I can log on to Amazon or Alibris and find a dozen or more copies in different conditions and at different prices, all to be delivered within a week or so. The trend that we are experiencing is that of instant gratification. We no longer have the patience, the tenacity, or the desire for the pursuit of something. We want the item immediately, at the lowest possible expenditure of energy and money. In the extreme, this trend makes us all more selfish and more impatient with those around us.
The second trend that results from purchasing items via the internet is personal isolation. When I buy something on the internet, my only interaction is with a machine, my computer. If I search for a book or another item in retail stores I come into contact with other people. Whether or not these people share my interests and beliefs, the interaction with them is an opportunity to grow and learn, to experience our culture first-hand. Most organizations of collectors have experienced a decline in attendance at their meetings and shows as more and more members choose instead to seek and purchase items through the internet auctions. This loss of personal interaction will make it more difficult for us to engage with others when we have to, say, in some kind of emergency.
These two trends, instant gratification and personal isolation, are not good for us as individuals, or as a society. Before the Socialists suggest that the Government take action to reverse the trends by subsidizing book stores or by limiting internet sales transactions, I propose that we individuals do something about the trends. We probably can not change the infrastructure or the habits of the whole society, but we can change ourselves. When we use the internet, remove personal interaction from the procurement of goods, and satisfy our specific need immediately, we should consider some new activities to provide the psychological and sociological benefits of which we have deprived ourselves. We can pursue a goal that is intangible, and therefore cannot be just bought on the internet. And we can find other people who are pursuing the same or similar objectives, and meet with them in pursuit of the common goals.
The development of a simple and convenient way to preserve our knowledge and ideas may be just that kind of goal. The people who take on that challenge may help to reverse three negative trends.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Admiral Nelson Character Jug
Viscount Horatio Nelson, 1758–1805Admiral Nelson defeated the French fleet in the Battle of the Nile (1798), ending Napoleon's attempt to conquer Egypt. He crushed French and Spanish naval forces at Trafalgar (1805), where he was mortally wounded, gaining control of the sea that eventually enabled the defeat of Napoleon's army.
Few figures in history have been commemorated in pictures, medals, books, china, pottery, paintings, prints, and other artifacts as often as Vice Admiral Nelson. One need only do an eBay search on his name to sample the quantity and variety of items available. The celebration in 2005 of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar spurred the production and sale of hundreds more commemorative items--coffee mugs, post cards, postage stamps, coins, etc. As an admirer of Admiral Nelson, I am among those who have purchased a few Nelson commemorative items over the years, including three fairly common character jugs produced by Royal Doulton in the latter part of the 20th century.
Recently I was lucky enough to acquire one that is a little less common, a Staffordshire character jug, about 10 1/2 inches tall.
There is no pottery mark on it, but it was made some time in the 19th century. The medal resting on the orange sash has the inscription, "Nile 1798." The jug could have been made early in the 19th century to commemorate the Battle of the Nile. Or it may have been made in 1898, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the battle.
I know a lot more about Admiral Nelson than I do about Staffordshire pottery. Maybe somebody who sees this posting will be able to offer some more specific information about when and where it was made.
After a fairly long search on the web, I was able to find a picture of one just like it in a September, 2004 catalog from a British auction house (Morphet).In any case, I am pleased to add it to my collection.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Remember the Maine!
On February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded and sank in the harbor at Havana, Cuba, triggering the start of the Spanish-American War.
Although we now refer to the Maine as a battleship, she was originally designated as a heavy armored cruiser. She and her sister ship, the USS Texas, were considered to be battleship prototypes, and were sometimes referred to as second class battleships.
Maine was 319 feet long, and had a beam of 57 feet. She displaced 6,682 tons. Her main guns were four 10-inch 35 caliber, and her secondary guns were seven 6 pounders and eight 1 pounders. She was manned by 31 officers and 343 enlisted. Maine carried 896 tons of coal, and her reciprocating steam engines gave her a designed speed of 17 knots.
The Maine was commissioned in September, 1895. There are very few good photographs of the Maine, probably because of her relatively short career. This picture is one panel of a stereoptican card.
A second battleship Maine (BB-10) was commissioned in 1902. Occasionally one of the many photographs of the second Maine is mis-labelled as the original. The easiest way to tell the difference is that the 1902 Maine had 3 smokestacks.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Diversity and Immigration
What angers me is that so many people believe that cultural diversity and national unity are incompatible. I was taught and still believe that people of many heritages and cultural backgrounds can work to achieve welfare, education, and common defense under a single American flag with a single American government and a single common language. At the same time, they can cherish and celebrate their individual cultural heritage, including music, literature, art, and language, at home and among friends; and they share it with interested fellow Americans.
Italians, Irish, Germans, Dutch, Russians, Hungarians, Czechs, French, Latvians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards, Chinese, Japanese, and people of many other nationalities have done exactly that. All of them came to America seeking a better life. Difficult as it was, the vast majority of them complied with our immigration laws, and pursued citizenship in accordance with those laws. To them, citizenship was a esteemed accomplishment, worth hard effort to achieve. They never dreamed of converting America into the a duplicate of the country that they left. They all preserved their cultural heritages to a degree that made them comfortable at home and among friends, but not to a degree that might destroy the very structure and values that made America attractive to them in the first place.
As a result, the United States has a truly diverse society. I know that, for example, because my personal collection of books and compact disks contains items by and about authors, composers, and musicians from many of those countries. Many of them were gifts from acquaintaces from different ethnic heritages. My own knowledge is broadened to include them, and my life is much richer because of that. So, I would not support a cessation of the immigration that has made our lives so rich.
But there are many today who enter this country today without abiding by the immigration laws. They do not want to learn English. They insist that we speak and use their language both in daily commerce and in legal documents. They are too selfish and ignorant to realize that, by converting this country into a mirror image of their own, they will destroy the very culture that made the United States attractive to them in the first place. These lawbreakers are encouraged by our own greedy employers and by the legislators who woo them for campaign funds.
Illegal immigration is a dangerous process that must be halted. I have been hesitant to join any of the many web-based organizations that champion the cause. Many of them go too far for me by opposing immigration altogether, or by including extreme positions on other issues in their agendas. But halting illegal immigration is so important that I feel the need to support one of those organizations, even if I will have to accept some chaff among the wheat. One such organization is Grassfire.org. Like many, their agenda carries some baggage that I cannot accept. I posted a link to their site on my side bar.
Italians, Irish, Germans, Dutch, Russians, Hungarians, Czechs, French, Latvians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards, Chinese, Japanese, and people of many other nationalities have done exactly that. All of them came to America seeking a better life. Difficult as it was, the vast majority of them complied with our immigration laws, and pursued citizenship in accordance with those laws. To them, citizenship was a esteemed accomplishment, worth hard effort to achieve. They never dreamed of converting America into the a duplicate of the country that they left. They all preserved their cultural heritages to a degree that made them comfortable at home and among friends, but not to a degree that might destroy the very structure and values that made America attractive to them in the first place.
As a result, the United States has a truly diverse society. I know that, for example, because my personal collection of books and compact disks contains items by and about authors, composers, and musicians from many of those countries. Many of them were gifts from acquaintaces from different ethnic heritages. My own knowledge is broadened to include them, and my life is much richer because of that. So, I would not support a cessation of the immigration that has made our lives so rich.
But there are many today who enter this country today without abiding by the immigration laws. They do not want to learn English. They insist that we speak and use their language both in daily commerce and in legal documents. They are too selfish and ignorant to realize that, by converting this country into a mirror image of their own, they will destroy the very culture that made the United States attractive to them in the first place. These lawbreakers are encouraged by our own greedy employers and by the legislators who woo them for campaign funds.
Illegal immigration is a dangerous process that must be halted. I have been hesitant to join any of the many web-based organizations that champion the cause. Many of them go too far for me by opposing immigration altogether, or by including extreme positions on other issues in their agendas. But halting illegal immigration is so important that I feel the need to support one of those organizations, even if I will have to accept some chaff among the wheat. One such organization is Grassfire.org. Like many, their agenda carries some baggage that I cannot accept. I posted a link to their site on my side bar.
European Appeasement
The following was in one of the many forwarded emails that I received. I checked it out at Snopes.com. -- The opinion piece was published in Die Welt. I have deleted some of the superflous additions by the senders.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, " Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany , then all the rest of Eastern Europe , where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for -Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany ?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain 's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China .
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe , Bush realizes what is at stake literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems.
Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe , thy name is Cowardice.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, " Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany , then all the rest of Eastern Europe , where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for -Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany ?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain 's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China .
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe , Bush realizes what is at stake literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems.
Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe , thy name is Cowardice.
Friday, January 19, 2007
"Sea-Fever" Revisited
In my October 14, 2006 post, I re-published the poem, Sea-Fever, by John Masefield. It is a favorite of mine, and probably one of the most popular poems in the English Language.
I added a footnote stating that an error had appeared in the first line of each stanza in some later printings of the poem. In the original 1902 edition of Salt-water Ballads, the line reads, I MUST down to the seas again... Apparently, some editors, believing that down is an adverb, not a verb, and believing that you do not capitalize the letters of a word mid-sentence, changed the text to read, I must go down to the seas again...
As I learned from my favorite English professor in college, I stated that these grammatical "corrections" alter the meter and change the emphasis of the first line.
Read it yourself: "I MUST down to the seas again..."
Or, "I must go Down to the seas again..."
Now, which of those readings more strongly conveys the strength of the poet's urge to return to the seas?
Although it is no doubt mandatory in our present age of English illiteracy, this belief of editors that they can "correct," or somehow improve upon the works of a writer bothers me. It is much more irritating in poetry, in which the writer may intentionally break the rules of prose grammar to emphasize a point, as Masefield did in Sea-Fever. After all,that's what poetry is all about. Editors know their spelling and grammar, but most of them don't understand poetry that well.
Recently, I obtained a copy of the 1958 Caedmon recording of John Masefield reading his own poems. At last I could hear Sea Fever in the poet's own voice. To my astonishment, the 80 year-old poet reads, I must go down to the seas again...!
His reading did not convey the urgency of the original poem at all. I asked myself, "Was he reading it from one of the erroneous printings? Did he merely overlook the subtle difference from his original verse? Did he just not care? Or was it all of the above?"
We will probably never know the answers. Masefield passed away in 1967. I doubt that anyone ever bothered him with this minor confusion about his famous poem. But for me, it is the difference between good poetry and great poetry. It will always be, I MUST down to the seas again, the lonely sea and the sky...
I added a footnote stating that an error had appeared in the first line of each stanza in some later printings of the poem. In the original 1902 edition of Salt-water Ballads, the line reads, I MUST down to the seas again... Apparently, some editors, believing that down is an adverb, not a verb, and believing that you do not capitalize the letters of a word mid-sentence, changed the text to read, I must go down to the seas again...
As I learned from my favorite English professor in college, I stated that these grammatical "corrections" alter the meter and change the emphasis of the first line.
Read it yourself: "I MUST down to the seas again..."
Or, "I must go Down to the seas again..."
Now, which of those readings more strongly conveys the strength of the poet's urge to return to the seas?
Although it is no doubt mandatory in our present age of English illiteracy, this belief of editors that they can "correct," or somehow improve upon the works of a writer bothers me. It is much more irritating in poetry, in which the writer may intentionally break the rules of prose grammar to emphasize a point, as Masefield did in Sea-Fever. After all,that's what poetry is all about. Editors know their spelling and grammar, but most of them don't understand poetry that well.
Recently, I obtained a copy of the 1958 Caedmon recording of John Masefield reading his own poems. At last I could hear Sea Fever in the poet's own voice. To my astonishment, the 80 year-old poet reads, I must go down to the seas again...!
His reading did not convey the urgency of the original poem at all. I asked myself, "Was he reading it from one of the erroneous printings? Did he merely overlook the subtle difference from his original verse? Did he just not care? Or was it all of the above?"
We will probably never know the answers. Masefield passed away in 1967. I doubt that anyone ever bothered him with this minor confusion about his famous poem. But for me, it is the difference between good poetry and great poetry. It will always be, I MUST down to the seas again, the lonely sea and the sky...
Monday, January 15, 2007
Sports Mascots
The subject of sports mascots jumps into the news reports every once in a while. The politically correct folks try to force a team whose mascot is some variant on an American indian theme to change its mascot. They have no idea how to address the root causes of racism in society, so they wrestle with words and images instead. They think that if you erase the picture, the prejudice disappears, too. These efforts are a silly waste of time, money and energy. The criticisms are fallacious and inconsistent.
- The critics argue that these mascots are demeaning to native Americans, but that's wrong. The mascots celebrate the strength, bravery, and tenacity of native Americans. They characterize a sports team, not a person. Only people who are already prejudiced or those who are insecure, find any other meaning in them.
- They argue that the images are stereotypes, but that's not the case. The images are no more representative of a modern native American than a photograph of Geronimo is, and nobody thinks that they are.
- They attack only the mascots that relate to native Americans. Apparently it's ok to charicature the Celts, the Trojans, the Cossacks, or whomever. Maybe it would be better to eliminate mascots altogether.
- If someone is prejudiced against native Americans, these images will neither increase nor alter that prejudice. The majority of intelligent souls who are not prejudiced will not change their views as a result of exposure to the symbols and mascots.
I live in California, but when I lived in Ohio, I liked the Cleveland Indians. And I occasionally wear my Cleveland Indians baseball cap as a simple protest against those who get all riled up over this non-issue.
Chief Wahoo represents only one thing to me--a baseball team. In fact, if someone wants to call their team the Retired Engineers, and use a cartoon of a nerd carrying a slide rule (or a calculator) as their mascot, I will not object.
The sports mascot activists should redirect their energies into some significant cause, such as helping the homeless or reducing pollution. As far as the team logos go, it's pretty simple--if you don't like an image, just ignore it. Go watch the Celts instead.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Thoughts on Teddy K
Rock, in his blog, http://truthrock.blogspot.com/index.html, said:
"I think in a time of war if you vote according to the most recent polls, instead of voting according to what you think the troops need, that you are a scoundrel. I think in the case of some politicians, like Edward Kennedy, that the man is just pure evil. He sees the American people want the troops out, and now all of a sudden he becomes very visible in fighting for just that. He doesn't give a fig about our soldiers, nor about America. He has only one goal, that the Republicans be humiliated and that the Democrats expand their power. He is a despicable man."
I would add that those who worship, adore, and believe the pronouncements of the 'hero of Chappaquiddick" are despicable as well.
"I think in a time of war if you vote according to the most recent polls, instead of voting according to what you think the troops need, that you are a scoundrel. I think in the case of some politicians, like Edward Kennedy, that the man is just pure evil. He sees the American people want the troops out, and now all of a sudden he becomes very visible in fighting for just that. He doesn't give a fig about our soldiers, nor about America. He has only one goal, that the Republicans be humiliated and that the Democrats expand their power. He is a despicable man."
I would add that those who worship, adore, and believe the pronouncements of the 'hero of Chappaquiddick" are despicable as well.
The Problem in Iraq
President Bush has good reason to be concerned about Prime minister Maliki.
It's hard for westerners to figure out who can be trusted in the Middle East.
Bogie Did It Again
His Noble Excellency Bogie the Intransigent of Leper St George
Bogie is 12 years old. That's getting up there for a shar pei. I think he may be getting a little senile. He has re-started his boyhood habit of marking spots in our living room, a spare bedroom, and one of the bathrooms. He has also started reaching up to the counter-tops and taking whatever he finds interesting.
When we got home from an afternoon movie yesterday, we found that he had raided the countertop and pulled Bonnie's blood pressure pills down. He had broken the plastic container, and he (and/or his companion, Lucy) had managed to down about 5 of the 28 pills (at first we thought there were 48 pills and that 25 were gone). So we wasted no time getting them both to the emergency vet center.
The doctor forced them to vomit. Bogie's discharge had the definite bright yellow coloration of the pills, but Lucy's appeared clear. The decision was to give them both some activated charcoal to pull out any potential residue, and have them stay in the hospital overnight so their blood pressures could be monitored every couple of hours.
So we left them, and went home to a (very empty) house. The hospital called us about 8:30 a.m. with the good news. They had both done quite well overnight, with no blood pressure problems. We could bring them home with no special medication, and just keep an eye out for any anomalies in behavior.
Lucky Bogie! He had no apparent adverse effects and, because we acted quickly, probably no damage to liver or kidneys.
Poor Lucy! She had to go through the purge ordeal and a night in the strange place just because of Bogie's mischief.
Reverend Lady Lucy the Erudite of Helions Bumpstead
And poor Bonnie! She got the vet bill, and she had to spend a lonely, restless night without our two companions, worrying about their condition.
Bogie and Lucy have been home for about 4 hours now, and seem quite normal, albeit somewhat tired from their ordeal. Bonnie is tired, too.
Friday, January 12, 2007
What, no "Spirit of Compromise?"
Well, the new era of compromise and cooperation that the Democrats promised us has lasted less than 2 weeks. The Republicans have not helped as much as they might have, either.
While President Bush prepared a revised strategy for Iraq that barely hinted at some actions that might lead to compromise, all of the Bush-bashers prepared to shoot the plan down, and to scream for rapid withdrawal and specific timelines.
Those who repeatedly call President Bush a liar are themselves lying. They said they would try to work out compromises, but instead, they simply denounce the plan. It also seems to me that if President Bush strongly believes that a temporary surge in troop strength is the solution most likely to be effective, he should offer his critics some movement in their direction.
For example, instead of saying that we will tell the Iraqi government that "our commitment is not open-ended," President Bush could offer a sort of time line, not for our troops, but for the Iraqi government. He could have his experts estimate a reasonable time it would take to secure Bagdad. Then he could propose to Mr. Maliki that the Iraqi forces, with increased assistance from ours, secure Bagdad within, say three months of that estimated date. He could further offer that, if the goal were achieved on time, we would commence a gradual withdrawal of our forces; but if the Iraqi government could not secure Bagdad within that time frame, we would commence a rapid withdrawal. Adding something of this nature to his plan would constitute a step by the President in the direction his critics claim they want to go.
The fact that neither Republicans nor Democrats have offered such a proposal indicates that the concept of compromise is a sham.
I think that no compromise would be acceptable to the Democrats. If they agree to a compromise and the Bush administration is successful in Iraq, the Democrats have less chance of gaining power in 2008. They want to see a Republican failure in Iraq, regardless of the future consequences to the United States, or to Iraq. They will deny this, of course. But their actions, or lack of actions, speak louder than their words.
I have yet to hear one of these critics propose a plan for success, or even a plan with well-defined consequences. The reason is that they do not have one. They have not tried to develop one because their objective is not an Iraq solution, or a middle east solution. Their objective is a Bush failure. So, instead of proposing alternatives, the critics are content to attack the plan, attack the planners, attack, investigate.
People who have never been to Iraq, who have never studied military strategy or history are saying that Iraq is a total loss. They base this assessment not on hard facts or data, but on their emotional desire to get out of an ugly situation or to destroy a president they detest. Or, they are saying it because of what they read or heard from media persons who are equally ignorant and biased.
In another master stroke of understatement, President Bush also alluded to the need to change the "rules of engagement." We have shown ourselves as incapable of dealing with the Maliki government as we are incapable of dealing with our half-ally Musharaff in Pakistan. Maliki must be made to understand that he is required to honor his commitments to us, and that he must not show favoritism to criminals of any sect. As it stands today, a telephone call from a Maliki cohort results in the release of a captured (Shiite) terrorist, no matter how serious his offense. Bagdad will not be secure until the thugs are either killed or jailed. It's a huge mistake to turn a war into a political game. The radicals and the private militiamen must be disarmed and brought to justice. Those in government who aid and abet them should also be called to task for their complicity.
Additionally, the flow of arms to the insurgents from Iran and Syria must be cut off completely. President Bush is right that this has to be accomplished on Iraqi soil. To do this in parallel with securing Bagdad probably requires more that the 20,000 additional troops proposed in the plan. I was surprised that the proposed number was not larger. Even if the 20,000 is sufficient, a larger number could have been reduced as part of a compromise.
But the period of cooperation and compromise among Democrats and Republican is over. Actually, it never really began.
While President Bush prepared a revised strategy for Iraq that barely hinted at some actions that might lead to compromise, all of the Bush-bashers prepared to shoot the plan down, and to scream for rapid withdrawal and specific timelines.
Those who repeatedly call President Bush a liar are themselves lying. They said they would try to work out compromises, but instead, they simply denounce the plan. It also seems to me that if President Bush strongly believes that a temporary surge in troop strength is the solution most likely to be effective, he should offer his critics some movement in their direction.
For example, instead of saying that we will tell the Iraqi government that "our commitment is not open-ended," President Bush could offer a sort of time line, not for our troops, but for the Iraqi government. He could have his experts estimate a reasonable time it would take to secure Bagdad. Then he could propose to Mr. Maliki that the Iraqi forces, with increased assistance from ours, secure Bagdad within, say three months of that estimated date. He could further offer that, if the goal were achieved on time, we would commence a gradual withdrawal of our forces; but if the Iraqi government could not secure Bagdad within that time frame, we would commence a rapid withdrawal. Adding something of this nature to his plan would constitute a step by the President in the direction his critics claim they want to go.
The fact that neither Republicans nor Democrats have offered such a proposal indicates that the concept of compromise is a sham.
I think that no compromise would be acceptable to the Democrats. If they agree to a compromise and the Bush administration is successful in Iraq, the Democrats have less chance of gaining power in 2008. They want to see a Republican failure in Iraq, regardless of the future consequences to the United States, or to Iraq. They will deny this, of course. But their actions, or lack of actions, speak louder than their words.
I have yet to hear one of these critics propose a plan for success, or even a plan with well-defined consequences. The reason is that they do not have one. They have not tried to develop one because their objective is not an Iraq solution, or a middle east solution. Their objective is a Bush failure. So, instead of proposing alternatives, the critics are content to attack the plan, attack the planners, attack, investigate.
People who have never been to Iraq, who have never studied military strategy or history are saying that Iraq is a total loss. They base this assessment not on hard facts or data, but on their emotional desire to get out of an ugly situation or to destroy a president they detest. Or, they are saying it because of what they read or heard from media persons who are equally ignorant and biased.
In another master stroke of understatement, President Bush also alluded to the need to change the "rules of engagement." We have shown ourselves as incapable of dealing with the Maliki government as we are incapable of dealing with our half-ally Musharaff in Pakistan. Maliki must be made to understand that he is required to honor his commitments to us, and that he must not show favoritism to criminals of any sect. As it stands today, a telephone call from a Maliki cohort results in the release of a captured (Shiite) terrorist, no matter how serious his offense. Bagdad will not be secure until the thugs are either killed or jailed. It's a huge mistake to turn a war into a political game. The radicals and the private militiamen must be disarmed and brought to justice. Those in government who aid and abet them should also be called to task for their complicity.
Additionally, the flow of arms to the insurgents from Iran and Syria must be cut off completely. President Bush is right that this has to be accomplished on Iraqi soil. To do this in parallel with securing Bagdad probably requires more that the 20,000 additional troops proposed in the plan. I was surprised that the proposed number was not larger. Even if the 20,000 is sufficient, a larger number could have been reduced as part of a compromise.
But the period of cooperation and compromise among Democrats and Republican is over. Actually, it never really began.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush: Too Little, Too Late?
Like many of my countrymen, I have been disappointed with President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.
I was ambivalent about him starting it in the first place. We had not (and still have not) finished the business of stabilizing Afghanistan and putting Osama bin Laden out of business. There were and are bigger threats than Saddam--Iran, North Korea, and the Afghan heroin trade. And we did not have a good understanding of the cultures and behavior of the Iraqi people.
Once committed in Iraq, however, we are obliged to do the job right. That's a lesson we should have learned from the Viet Nam war. Several mistakes at the very beginning sent our enemies messages of weakness. It was not sufficient merely to disband Saddam's army--we should have captured them and disarmed them. We should have occupied all arsenals, and protected them from theft. We should have come down hard on the looters in Bagdad. We should have located and disarmed all of the 'tribal militias' immediately. We should not have restrained our troops with over-restrictive rules of engagement. If we were not prepared at the outset to send enough troops to demonstrate our strength and our resolve by doing these things, we should not have begun the war. Finally, the president failed to establish programs in our own country to keep us all informed, involved in, and supportive of the war on terrorism.
At first blush, it seems reasonable that President Bush gave President Maliki a voice in our overall strategy, since we expect his forces to participate in carrying it out. But Maliki is beholden for his position to radical Shiites who are part of the problem. He has not followed through on his promises.
In his speech last night, President Bush finally acknowledged some of his mistakes, and he presented a plan that should have been implemented long before this. In waiting so long, Bush not only delayed success in Iraq, but he also lost the support and confidence of many Americans.
--Secure Bagdad by creating "gated communities." This will require more troops, and it will require Maliki to be more active in enforcing security. [I wonder, though, if 21,500 additional troops is enough, and if Maliki will ever come through.]
--Crack down on tribal militias, both Sunni and Shiite. [I don't know what "crack down" means. It should mean disarm them, and jail them if necessary. This requires acknowledging that Muqtada al Sadr is an enemy. Disarm and abolish his militia. Make it clear that he can pursue his goals through the elected government, or he can go to jail.]
--In president Bush's words, set "benchmarks" for Maliki and his government. We can support al Maliki only so much and for so long. If he can not or will not take positive control, then we leave. [I see this as a "timetable," not for us, but for the Iraqi government.]
Bush is right when he says that early withdrawal is not an option. That would leave Iraq to be the world's largest terrorist training ground.
But to succeed, we must deploy enough forces to do the job. We must not send those forces in with over-restrictive rules of engagement. Remember, it's not a game--the bad guys do not follow the rules. They exploit our restraints to their own advantage. We must also insist that the Iraqi government take firm control and stop tolerating sectarian interference, and we must give them more training and assistance to accomplish that.
Many people in our nation seem live with a video game mentality. If the going gets tough, if we encounter losses, if progress is too slow, let's just turn off the game box and listen to some MP3s instead. The determination, resolve, and perseverance that made our country great seem to be fading. What we cannot afford, Mr. President, is to let determination and resolve turn into blind stubbornness.
I was ambivalent about him starting it in the first place. We had not (and still have not) finished the business of stabilizing Afghanistan and putting Osama bin Laden out of business. There were and are bigger threats than Saddam--Iran, North Korea, and the Afghan heroin trade. And we did not have a good understanding of the cultures and behavior of the Iraqi people.
Once committed in Iraq, however, we are obliged to do the job right. That's a lesson we should have learned from the Viet Nam war. Several mistakes at the very beginning sent our enemies messages of weakness. It was not sufficient merely to disband Saddam's army--we should have captured them and disarmed them. We should have occupied all arsenals, and protected them from theft. We should have come down hard on the looters in Bagdad. We should have located and disarmed all of the 'tribal militias' immediately. We should not have restrained our troops with over-restrictive rules of engagement. If we were not prepared at the outset to send enough troops to demonstrate our strength and our resolve by doing these things, we should not have begun the war. Finally, the president failed to establish programs in our own country to keep us all informed, involved in, and supportive of the war on terrorism.
At first blush, it seems reasonable that President Bush gave President Maliki a voice in our overall strategy, since we expect his forces to participate in carrying it out. But Maliki is beholden for his position to radical Shiites who are part of the problem. He has not followed through on his promises.
In his speech last night, President Bush finally acknowledged some of his mistakes, and he presented a plan that should have been implemented long before this. In waiting so long, Bush not only delayed success in Iraq, but he also lost the support and confidence of many Americans.
--Secure Bagdad by creating "gated communities." This will require more troops, and it will require Maliki to be more active in enforcing security. [I wonder, though, if 21,500 additional troops is enough, and if Maliki will ever come through.]
--Crack down on tribal militias, both Sunni and Shiite. [I don't know what "crack down" means. It should mean disarm them, and jail them if necessary. This requires acknowledging that Muqtada al Sadr is an enemy. Disarm and abolish his militia. Make it clear that he can pursue his goals through the elected government, or he can go to jail.]
--In president Bush's words, set "benchmarks" for Maliki and his government. We can support al Maliki only so much and for so long. If he can not or will not take positive control, then we leave. [I see this as a "timetable," not for us, but for the Iraqi government.]
Bush is right when he says that early withdrawal is not an option. That would leave Iraq to be the world's largest terrorist training ground.
But to succeed, we must deploy enough forces to do the job. We must not send those forces in with over-restrictive rules of engagement. Remember, it's not a game--the bad guys do not follow the rules. They exploit our restraints to their own advantage. We must also insist that the Iraqi government take firm control and stop tolerating sectarian interference, and we must give them more training and assistance to accomplish that.
Many people in our nation seem live with a video game mentality. If the going gets tough, if we encounter losses, if progress is too slow, let's just turn off the game box and listen to some MP3s instead. The determination, resolve, and perseverance that made our country great seem to be fading. What we cannot afford, Mr. President, is to let determination and resolve turn into blind stubbornness.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Another Silly Diversion
I just obtained my Peculiar Aristocratic Title:
 | My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: |
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Stow, Ohio
For some reason, I started thinking about the town where I lived the first four years of my life. Stow, Ohio, is on state route 91, just north of Akron. When my family lived there, it had a population of about 600. Our acquaintances used to say, "We passed through the outskirts of Stow on the way to Cleveland." Dad would explain that it was not the outskirts they drove through, it was Stow. It's probably a very different place today.
We lived on Williamson Road, a dirt road. Every spring, a truck came and sprayed the road with a layer of oil to keep the dust down. We had a square cardboard sign with numbers on it that we placed in the front window every few days. The number that was right side up showed the driver of the horse-drawn wagon from the coal and lumber company what size block of ice to bring to our back door, and put in our ice box. I can remember the day the ice box was replaced by a brand new Servel gas refrigerator.
Milk was delivered by a man with a truck. On the steps by our back door he would place two glass bottles with cardboard stoppers. The cream was at the top, and we had the option of pouring it off, or shaking the bottle to make the milk richer. In the winter, the milk and cream expanded as they froze, and pushed the cardboard stopper out of the bottle to a height of several inches. A truck from the bakery came by periodically to deliver fresh bread. Sometimes we children would get treated to a fresh eclair.
At the north end of Williamson Road was Marhofer Avenue, which led to the street on which was Stow High School, where my father taught English. My brother attended Stow High, and joined the Navy when he graduated. At the south end of Williamson Road was Kent Road, which had Joe Fisher's grocery store on it. Mom used to take me with her to Fisher's. She walked, and I pedaled my little red fire truck. Mom gave her list to Mr. Fisher, who stood behind a counter. Behind him, floor to ceiling, were shelves with all of the packaged goods on them. He used a long pole with a 'grabber' on it to pull the items we needed from the higher shelves. "We are all out of Clabber Girl baking powder," he would say, "will Calumet be ok?" He put all of our items in paper bags, and we carried them home. Mother used that Calumet baking powder for cakes and cookies. I remember sitting in the kitchen while she baked. The radio broadcast the daytime dramas of the day: The Romance of Helen Trent, Ma Perkins, Backstage Wife, Lorenzo Jones and His Wife, Bell, Our Gal Sunday. "Can a girl from a small mining town in Virginia find happiness as the wife of a wealthy and titled Englishman?'' I don't know if she did or not.
I have some dim memories of the people on Williamson Road. We lived in a side-by-side duplex. A woman named Mrs. Moon lived in the other side. I cannot remember what she looked like. Across the street lived Billy Grey and his family. I used to play with him in his back yard. Once he took me up into the attic and showed me a whole trunk full of money. When I told my Dad about it, he explained that the money was Confederate bills, and absolutely worthless. On the same side of the street and down a few doors lived Kathy Cole. She, Billy, and I liked to climb the trees in her front yard.
I think I know why I do not have many photographs from the Stow years. One day I opened the door to a cabinet in the living room. In the cabinet I found some funny little metal spools with paper wrapped on them. When I unrolled the paper, I found some plastic like stuff rolled up in it. The plastic turned sort of white as I unrolled it. Mom was very angry when she saw what I had done, and told me not to do it again.
One evening, as we sat on the front porch, a stray dog -- a white spitz -- came into the front yard. Mom said, "Come here, poochie," and he came up on the porch. We gave him some food and he stayed with us. Dad put a 'found dog' notice in the paper, but noone claimed him. Since Mom called him "Poochie," I thought that was his name, and it was his name from then on.
A few streets away lived my uncle Albert and his family. He was a research chemist for Goodyear Tire and Rubber in Akron. They remained in Stow for several years after we moved north to Cleveland Heights. At first, the lots on either side of his house were vacant. Then a house was erected on one of them. When someone began to build a house on the other side of his, Uncle Albert decided that Stow was getting too crowded, and moved to a 200 acre farm near Mogadore, Ohio.
Some time in the early 1940's, my father accepted a position at Cleveland Heights High School, about 3o miles north of us. He used to commute, staying in a room up there during the week, and coming back to Stow for the weekends. At first he drove a Ford Model T. Once, as he headed north, the forward gears on the Model T broke down. He had to make his way back to Stow in reverse gear. Next, he bought a 1928 Hupmobile. I remember that the Hupmobile had a roll-up window shade on the rear window. The next car was a 1936 Oldsmobile that we used until a couple of years after we moved to Cleveland Heights in 1944.
We lived on Williamson Road, a dirt road. Every spring, a truck came and sprayed the road with a layer of oil to keep the dust down. We had a square cardboard sign with numbers on it that we placed in the front window every few days. The number that was right side up showed the driver of the horse-drawn wagon from the coal and lumber company what size block of ice to bring to our back door, and put in our ice box. I can remember the day the ice box was replaced by a brand new Servel gas refrigerator.
Milk was delivered by a man with a truck. On the steps by our back door he would place two glass bottles with cardboard stoppers. The cream was at the top, and we had the option of pouring it off, or shaking the bottle to make the milk richer. In the winter, the milk and cream expanded as they froze, and pushed the cardboard stopper out of the bottle to a height of several inches. A truck from the bakery came by periodically to deliver fresh bread. Sometimes we children would get treated to a fresh eclair.
At the north end of Williamson Road was Marhofer Avenue, which led to the street on which was Stow High School, where my father taught English. My brother attended Stow High, and joined the Navy when he graduated. At the south end of Williamson Road was Kent Road, which had Joe Fisher's grocery store on it. Mom used to take me with her to Fisher's. She walked, and I pedaled my little red fire truck. Mom gave her list to Mr. Fisher, who stood behind a counter. Behind him, floor to ceiling, were shelves with all of the packaged goods on them. He used a long pole with a 'grabber' on it to pull the items we needed from the higher shelves. "We are all out of Clabber Girl baking powder," he would say, "will Calumet be ok?" He put all of our items in paper bags, and we carried them home. Mother used that Calumet baking powder for cakes and cookies. I remember sitting in the kitchen while she baked. The radio broadcast the daytime dramas of the day: The Romance of Helen Trent, Ma Perkins, Backstage Wife, Lorenzo Jones and His Wife, Bell, Our Gal Sunday. "Can a girl from a small mining town in Virginia find happiness as the wife of a wealthy and titled Englishman?'' I don't know if she did or not.
I have some dim memories of the people on Williamson Road. We lived in a side-by-side duplex. A woman named Mrs. Moon lived in the other side. I cannot remember what she looked like. Across the street lived Billy Grey and his family. I used to play with him in his back yard. Once he took me up into the attic and showed me a whole trunk full of money. When I told my Dad about it, he explained that the money was Confederate bills, and absolutely worthless. On the same side of the street and down a few doors lived Kathy Cole. She, Billy, and I liked to climb the trees in her front yard.
I think I know why I do not have many photographs from the Stow years. One day I opened the door to a cabinet in the living room. In the cabinet I found some funny little metal spools with paper wrapped on them. When I unrolled the paper, I found some plastic like stuff rolled up in it. The plastic turned sort of white as I unrolled it. Mom was very angry when she saw what I had done, and told me not to do it again.
One evening, as we sat on the front porch, a stray dog -- a white spitz -- came into the front yard. Mom said, "Come here, poochie," and he came up on the porch. We gave him some food and he stayed with us. Dad put a 'found dog' notice in the paper, but noone claimed him. Since Mom called him "Poochie," I thought that was his name, and it was his name from then on.
A few streets away lived my uncle Albert and his family. He was a research chemist for Goodyear Tire and Rubber in Akron. They remained in Stow for several years after we moved north to Cleveland Heights. At first, the lots on either side of his house were vacant. Then a house was erected on one of them. When someone began to build a house on the other side of his, Uncle Albert decided that Stow was getting too crowded, and moved to a 200 acre farm near Mogadore, Ohio.
Some time in the early 1940's, my father accepted a position at Cleveland Heights High School, about 3o miles north of us. He used to commute, staying in a room up there during the week, and coming back to Stow for the weekends. At first he drove a Ford Model T. Once, as he headed north, the forward gears on the Model T broke down. He had to make his way back to Stow in reverse gear. Next, he bought a 1928 Hupmobile. I remember that the Hupmobile had a roll-up window shade on the rear window. The next car was a 1936 Oldsmobile that we used until a couple of years after we moved to Cleveland Heights in 1944.
Rob, Poochie, and the 1936 Oldsmobile
Friday, January 05, 2007
National Minimum Wage
Apparently the Congress really wants to raise the minimum wage, and the President seems to be leaning toward agreement on the idea.
I suppose I should not get very excited about it because California, where I live, already has a minimum wage that is about the same as the amount that Congress is going to propose. Having owned a small business for a few years, I am opposed to the concept of a minimum wage, and I object to increasing it. Among the reasons are:
I suppose I should not get very excited about it because California, where I live, already has a minimum wage that is about the same as the amount that Congress is going to propose. Having owned a small business for a few years, I am opposed to the concept of a minimum wage, and I object to increasing it. Among the reasons are:
- The minimum wage is supposed to help the poorest of our working bread winners make ends meet, but it does not. Surveys have shown that only a small portion of the minimum wage earners are sole providers for a family. In fact, the majority of minimum wage positions are between-term or part-time jobs for students, or are held by people who are supplementing the income of a primary wage earner.
- The cost to an employer is much more than the amount of the minimum wage increase. Other payroll-related expenses increase as well. Among these are the company contributions to Social Security and Medicare and the cost of workmen's compensation insurance. That means that a $1.00 per hour increase can cost the employer $1.50 per hour. For a small business, this can be a crippling increase in labor cost.
- Raising the minimum wage is inflationary. When an employer increases the rate for minimum wage personnel, it has to provide corresponding increases to the more senior employees and to first-line supervisors. Otherwise, the entry-level person or the summer hire is earning as much as, or more than,his supervisor. Large companies simply raise their prices (and take profit on the increase) to compensate for the added payroll expenses. Many of these companies provide the very products and services that the minimum wage earners are likely to consume--groceries, fast food, clothing, etc. Thus, the employee's small increase in take-home pay is mostly chewed up by an increase in living expenses. It's like trying to fly by pulling up on your own bootstraps.
- Everyone else also pays for the inflation caused by the minimum wage increase. So it is not the government, or the large corporation, that funds the minimum wage increase. Every citizen does. In effect, each and every one of us takes a small pay cut in order to pay people more money even though they have not increased their productivity. The minimum wage is not merely inflationary; it is forced charity in a very thin disguise.
- This forced charity is regressive. Middle and lower income people pay a much larger percentage of their salary for the products and services of minimum wage employees than the wealthiest 1% do.
- Increasing the minimum wage reduces the number of available jobs. Smaller businesses are not be able to raise their prices because they will become non-competitive and lose sales. Instead, they reduce their work forces. Or, worse yet, they just go out of business altogether. Larger companies may try to relocate their production facility to another country.
Unfortunately, life is tough, and not always fair. Many people in our country look to the Government to solve their personal problems. And many politicians ignore the facts and cater to this tendency.
If someone really wants to earn more money, he can do so. He may have to give up cigarettes and alcohol and cancel his cell phone account. And he may have to go to school to gain more knowledge and skills. Many have done these kinds of things, and increased their income by doing so. When they do, their increase in income is generated by an increase in productivity, and it is not inflationary.
We should remember, too, that in our country the average CEO makes 369 times the money that the average worker makes. Assume that the CEO of a company with 1,000 employees receives $10,000,000 a year. If he reduces his salary so that he would have to struggle along on a paltry $2,000,000 per year, and divide the remaining $8,000,000 of his salary among his employees, he could give them all about a $2.90 per hour pay increase. At least this charity would be paid by someone who can afford it more easily than you or I.
No politician who seeks campaign contributions would ever suggest that corporate executives are overpaid. How popular would a politician be if he proposed a national maximum wage? Of course, a national maximum wage makes neither good economic sense nor good political sense. The minimum wage makes political sense (it brings in more votes without alienating wealthy campaign contributors), but it does not make good economic sense.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Crime Scene Investigation
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.
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 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)
