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.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
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.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Free Speech, Anyone?
"...If you take sides in an argument people really feel passionately about, half of the people will wind up hating you. However, if you try to be objective about it, likely all of them will."
We all want to believe that our college campuses are where freedom of speech reigns. Among faculty members, the concept has been characterized as "academic freedom." By the time a scholar is in college, he has matured to the point where the mere rote learning of facts and equations is not sufficient. In college, the scholar supposedly learns how to solve real world problems, both technical and social. He studies not only the facts, but also proposed solutions, and he weighs the potential outcomes of those solutions in a search for the optimum one. Ideally, the college campus is where all ideas are laid out for academic scrutiny in the pursuit of the real truth.
Two recent incidents at Columbia University demonstrate that freedom of speech and academic freedom are suppressed by political zealots as much on college campuses as anywhere else, or more. In the more recent, the Minutemen founder, Jim Gilchrist, was so violently attacked by members of the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization that University employees had to escort him from the stage before he could deliver his speech. A few weeks before that, Columbia University cancelled a planned appearance by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. The conservative brains claim that a creep like that should not be given a platform for his hateful views. The Ahmadinejad incident is discussed by Clyde Haberman in the New York times (NYC; Free Speech? )[unfortunately, the Times charges $4.95 for this one]. the Gilchrist incident is mentioned by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal (Sounds of Silencing).
Obviously, Gilchrist and Ahmadinijad have taken sides in their arguments, and some people hate each of them with passion. While Conservatives and Liberals alike speak loudly of the importance of Freedom of Speech, we see those very same conservatives and liberals strive daily to deny that freedom to their opponents. Both the academic pundits and the narcissistic celebrities (Celebrities and Narcissism) suffer from this disease of logical contortion.
Even though I would like to remain balanced on this one, the scales seem to tilt to the left. Both the academic community and the celebrity narcissists seem to abound with liberals. Peggy Noonan's article also points out that celebrities like Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell shut down those who would disagree with them. For these self-righteous leftists, their beliefs are so self-evident that there's no point in debating them. "I feel so much," these zealots rationalize to themselves, "therefore my views are correct and must prevail." They employ smug bullying, vile name calling, and profanity as they try to intimidate their opponents into silence. They literally shout until they win. And they take full advantage of their celebrity access to public platforms that are unavailable to the less intelligent common masses. No matter how much I appreciate the artistic contributions of these entertainers, I cannot abide them strangling our freedom of speech. Conservatives are not without fault here--President Bush stated recently that some ideas are so vile that no reasonable person should think them, let alone say them.
Passion belongs in political discourse, but not threats, violence, or censorship. Passion drives people forward in the presentation of their beliefs. But in a fair discourse, both sides passionately present the facts, their logical analysis of those facts, and proposed actions to change situations that are deemed faulty. What eventually boils out of this stew of facts, analysis, and solutions, are plans of action to make the country a better place to live in. But that happens only if we are allowed to put ALL of the ingredients in the stew, not just the ones that Barbra and Rosie like. Freedom of speech and the opportunity to exercise it must be extended to everyone.
Bound to your freedom of speech are both the responsiblity to listen and the obligation to evaluate the issue through the eyes of those who disgree with you. That means that we do not suppress or censor one speaker. Instead, we offer at least one other speaker an opportunity to present the contrasting view(s). More speech, not less, is what is needed.
We all want to believe that our college campuses are where freedom of speech reigns. Among faculty members, the concept has been characterized as "academic freedom." By the time a scholar is in college, he has matured to the point where the mere rote learning of facts and equations is not sufficient. In college, the scholar supposedly learns how to solve real world problems, both technical and social. He studies not only the facts, but also proposed solutions, and he weighs the potential outcomes of those solutions in a search for the optimum one. Ideally, the college campus is where all ideas are laid out for academic scrutiny in the pursuit of the real truth.
Two recent incidents at Columbia University demonstrate that freedom of speech and academic freedom are suppressed by political zealots as much on college campuses as anywhere else, or more. In the more recent, the Minutemen founder, Jim Gilchrist, was so violently attacked by members of the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization that University employees had to escort him from the stage before he could deliver his speech. A few weeks before that, Columbia University cancelled a planned appearance by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. The conservative brains claim that a creep like that should not be given a platform for his hateful views. The Ahmadinejad incident is discussed by Clyde Haberman in the New York times (NYC; Free Speech? )[unfortunately, the Times charges $4.95 for this one]. the Gilchrist incident is mentioned by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal (Sounds of Silencing).
Obviously, Gilchrist and Ahmadinijad have taken sides in their arguments, and some people hate each of them with passion. While Conservatives and Liberals alike speak loudly of the importance of Freedom of Speech, we see those very same conservatives and liberals strive daily to deny that freedom to their opponents. Both the academic pundits and the narcissistic celebrities (Celebrities and Narcissism) suffer from this disease of logical contortion.
Even though I would like to remain balanced on this one, the scales seem to tilt to the left. Both the academic community and the celebrity narcissists seem to abound with liberals. Peggy Noonan's article also points out that celebrities like Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell shut down those who would disagree with them. For these self-righteous leftists, their beliefs are so self-evident that there's no point in debating them. "I feel so much," these zealots rationalize to themselves, "therefore my views are correct and must prevail." They employ smug bullying, vile name calling, and profanity as they try to intimidate their opponents into silence. They literally shout until they win. And they take full advantage of their celebrity access to public platforms that are unavailable to the less intelligent common masses. No matter how much I appreciate the artistic contributions of these entertainers, I cannot abide them strangling our freedom of speech. Conservatives are not without fault here--President Bush stated recently that some ideas are so vile that no reasonable person should think them, let alone say them.
Passion belongs in political discourse, but not threats, violence, or censorship. Passion drives people forward in the presentation of their beliefs. But in a fair discourse, both sides passionately present the facts, their logical analysis of those facts, and proposed actions to change situations that are deemed faulty. What eventually boils out of this stew of facts, analysis, and solutions, are plans of action to make the country a better place to live in. But that happens only if we are allowed to put ALL of the ingredients in the stew, not just the ones that Barbra and Rosie like. Freedom of speech and the opportunity to exercise it must be extended to everyone.
Bound to your freedom of speech are both the responsiblity to listen and the obligation to evaluate the issue through the eyes of those who disgree with you. That means that we do not suppress or censor one speaker. Instead, we offer at least one other speaker an opportunity to present the contrasting view(s). More speech, not less, is what is needed.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Illegal Immigration--Time to Stop
It's well past time to stop the nonsense on illegal immigration. I just read a post by Rants and Raves that addresses the issue. I'm providing a link to that post here, and I have added his blog to the links in my side bar.
American Exceptionalism
In a more recent post, Rants and Raves also stated: "...If you take sides in an argument people really feel passionately about, half of the people will wind up hating you. However, if you try to be objective about it, likely all of them will."
I must be ready, then to have all of my readers hate me, because I want to try to be objective about illegal immigration.
It's time to stop illegal immigration to the United States of America. It's time to stop all of the rhetoric and name calling. It is time to dispel the myths and lies that supporters of illegal immigration are using in their propaganda.
American Exceptionalism
In a more recent post, Rants and Raves also stated: "...If you take sides in an argument people really feel passionately about, half of the people will wind up hating you. However, if you try to be objective about it, likely all of them will."
I must be ready, then to have all of my readers hate me, because I want to try to be objective about illegal immigration.
It's time to stop illegal immigration to the United States of America. It's time to stop all of the rhetoric and name calling. It is time to dispel the myths and lies that supporters of illegal immigration are using in their propaganda.
- Myth No. 1 --Illegal aliens are not illegal; they are just undocumented. The truth: If an alien does not has a proper entry document (green card), he is in the country illegally. If he is not illegal, his presence certainly is. "Politically correct" word manipulations do not change the facts. An immigrant is any person, not a citizen of the United States, who comes here from another nation or region. An illegal alien is an immigrant who entered the country without obeying U.S. immigration law and obtaining proper papers. A legal immigrant has a passport, a visa, and a green card. He has a specific purpose and stays for defined length of time, after which he either leaves or becomes a citizen in accordance with the law.
- Myth No. 2 -- Those who are opposed to illegal immigration hate all immigrants. The truth: Most oppose only illegal immigrants. Many who oppose illegal immigration ARE or WERE immigrants. They are earning, or earned their citizen ship the correct and legal way, and expect others to do the same.
- Myth No. 3--All, or most, opponents of illegal immigration are racists. The truth: There is no recorded evidence to support this statement. While it is possible that we may find more racists among the people who are opposed to illegal immigration than we would find in the general population, it does not matter. Racism is not the issue. The issue is that our immigration laws are being broken, and that situation must be corrected now.
- Myth No. 4 -- Illegal immigrants are "law abiding people." The truth: One hundered per cent of the illegal aliens have broken one law--they have established residence in this country without following the immigration law by obtaining the proper documentation for doing so. Moreover, the portion of illegal aliens who have also broken other laws (those against theft, assault, etc.) is at least the same as it is among citizens and legal aliens.
- Myth No. 5 -- The United States has no right to control its borders and to grant access selectively. The truth: There is no RIGHT, nor is there any supreme world authority to grant such a right. By custom and tradition, all sovereign nations define their own rules regarding who enters their country, who stays, and for how long. Mexico, our strongest critic with respect to this myth, has some of the most stringent immigration laws on earth. There should be no double standard.
It is time to set aside all of the myths, the propaganda, the verbal manipulations, and the name calling. Just stop it altogether.
It is time focus objectively on the solutions of three basic problems:
- First: Can, and should, businesses in the United States bring in large numbers of non-citizens to supplement our labor force? If so, how long should the non-citizens be allowed to stay? What, if any, of the tax funded citizen benefits should be granted to the non-citizens and their families?
- Second: Because the first problem is so complex and controversial, we decided not to solve it, but instead we are just ignoring our existing immigration and labor laws. We have not controlled access at our borders as prescribed by law, and we have not punished the employers who have broken the law against hiring illegal aliens. As a result, millions of illegal aliens have taken residence in our country. Should we keep them all here and make them citizens? Put them in jail? Deport them? Should all of them be treated the same?
- Third: Because of second problem, more people are entering the country every day--thousands of them. The fear that some of these illegal aliens may be terrorists causes some people great concern. More and more people are becoming dissatisfied with the situation
I am not offering my solutions, but rather the process by which the solutions must be developed. We need to solve the third problem FIRST, and allocate some resources to the first and second problems while we do it--
- (While we are devising solutions to the first and second problems,) correct the mistake that caused the third problem. Secure the border and enforce the existing immigration laws. Punish employers who are breaking the law against hiring illegal aliens. Congress should fund and the executive department should carry this out as quickly as possible, to minimize the impact of the other problems.
- Then (while we are devising solutions to the first problem,) Come up with a plan (laws and funding) to deal with the illegal aliens that are already here. A compromise that accounts for the length of time that they have been here is reasonable and probably necessary. The most recent arrivals may be deported, not to return. The most established residents may deserve a "path to citizenship" that in some way acknowledges their positive contributions.
- Finally, present the solutions to the first problem in the form of bills to change or add laws, if necessary, to provide an immigrant work force for some businesses.
The process is necessarily sequential because the more complex problems take more time to solve. Laws are being broken. Our national executives must enforce the existing law while our lawmakers devise new and changed laws to resolve other probems. At the same time, our politicians can assuage our neighbors to the South, North, East, and West by assuring them that we will do our very best find equitable solutions.
But wait--our national executives and lawmakers ARE our politicians!
Do you suppose they have the intelligence, the courage, and the desire to take all that on? Can they stop building and spending their campaign funds long enough to tackle some really important work? Can they stop wading around in the rhetoric, the name calling, the myths, and the emotional shoutings of the idiots and lawbreakers, and work on objective, sequential, fact-based solutions to the problems?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
It's All About Price
One more comment about Tower Records (I had to change the title of my earlier post today).
I searched all blogs for items on Tower Records, and came up with over 66,000 entries. I did not read them all, of course. But the few that I read quickly pointed out the simple truth. It goes like this:
I searched all blogs for items on Tower Records, and came up with over 66,000 entries. I did not read them all, of course. But the few that I read quickly pointed out the simple truth. It goes like this:
- (1) Many folks lament the loss of a retail store with depth and variety of stock. But they can still find depth and variety on the internet.
- (2) Some miss the social interactions in the local record shop. But people will find other places to interact.
- (3) NOBODY WANTS TO PAY FULL RETAIL PRICE FOR A CD, especially if they have to buy gasoline for a 20-mile round trip to do it. Most of us who started patronizing Tower years ago remember the discounted pricing that has virtually vanished in recent years. Now, if you find the $18.99 CD at Amazon.com, you may be able to get it for $6.99 plus shipping.
When I am searching for a very obscure item, I may be prepared to pay full price for it. But before I do, you can bet I check Amazon and eBay to see if I can get it at a discounted price. So, along with you other cheapskates out there, I have probably contributed to the demise of Tower. But we may still ask why Tower could no longer find ways to discount their products the way that other stores do.
'nuff said.
Penultimate Thoughts on the Demise of Tower
Two weeks ago, Tower Records was sold to Great American Group for $134.3 million. Great American, a liquidator will sell off the Tower stock and close the stores.
The action constitutes a small loss to the largest market, fans of popular, rock, and hip-hop music. For them, the latest music is readily available at discounted prices in Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and other stores. The songs are available for download on the internet. Granted, the fidelity of the downloads is not as good as that of CDs, but most folks are not that concerned about fidelity. The music is still generally available.
On the other hand, the demise of Tower is a major loss to many much smaller segments of the music-loving market, specifically classical, medieval and Renaissance, jazz, country, folk, "new age," and "world." In other retail stores, CDs are just one of many products that they sell, and these genres are a necessary appendage. As a result, the stores offer little in either scope or depth for these types of music. Moreover, they do not offer the knowledgeable staff that Tower provided to help the buyers find the specific performances that will bring them the greatest pleasure. Nor do they allow the social dimension of meeting and sharing with other buyers with similar interests.
That this is a major loss is not just my opinion--it is fact. For example, here is a list of some major American cities that do not have a decent classical record store:
The action constitutes a small loss to the largest market, fans of popular, rock, and hip-hop music. For them, the latest music is readily available at discounted prices in Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and other stores. The songs are available for download on the internet. Granted, the fidelity of the downloads is not as good as that of CDs, but most folks are not that concerned about fidelity. The music is still generally available.
On the other hand, the demise of Tower is a major loss to many much smaller segments of the music-loving market, specifically classical, medieval and Renaissance, jazz, country, folk, "new age," and "world." In other retail stores, CDs are just one of many products that they sell, and these genres are a necessary appendage. As a result, the stores offer little in either scope or depth for these types of music. Moreover, they do not offer the knowledgeable staff that Tower provided to help the buyers find the specific performances that will bring them the greatest pleasure. Nor do they allow the social dimension of meeting and sharing with other buyers with similar interests.
That this is a major loss is not just my opinion--it is fact. For example, here is a list of some major American cities that do not have a decent classical record store:
- New York City
- Philadelphia
- Cleveland
- Chicago
- Seattle
- Amoeba Music in Hollywood
- Borders Books
- Barnes and Noble
- Dutton's Books in Brentwood and Beverly Hills
Maybe some of my readers can add to this list.
It is not always convenient, however, for a person to drive 40 or 50 miles to browse CDs in a store. Even in the stores that carry CDs, the space allocated continues to shrink in both scope and depth. For example:
- Borders or Barnes and Noble will offer several different performances of the The Four Seasons by Antonio Vivaldi. But how many of the more than 500 other concertos by Vivaldi do they have in stock on CD? How about the hundreds of other Vivaldi compositions? There are probably over 150 different performances of The Four Seasons recorded on CD but will you be able to find more than a handful in your local record store? There is a similar situation for Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, and for other widely known classical works.
- I suspect that, no matter how many stores you visit, you will not be able to find a work by Johannes Verhulst on CD. How many CDs can you find in Best Buy of Hawaiian slack key guitar music, or of Portuguese fados? Sure, you may not be interested in these works, but some people are.
The 2.5% of us who listen regularly to classical music are turning to on-line sources. They do not provide the social dimension of CD collecting, but they help us access those hard-to-find disks. The most prominent on-line source is Amazon.com, which offers a reasonably large variety and good value. I have listed a few sources that I frequent in my side bar. Maybe someone out there can suggest a few more.
Much important music has already been lost for all time. Some was lost to fires in libraries and monastaries. Some was just discarded, or lost. I am reminded of the anecdote about how the composer, Felix Mendelsohnn, noted one day that the fish he bought in the local market was wrapped in paper with musical notations on it. Closer inspection showed that the music was manuscript written by J.S. Bach. Mendelsohnn went back to the market, not to buy fish, but to buy the rest of the wrapping paper. As a result, several important Bach works were rescued from total loss, but we do not know how much more is gone forever.
Both Classical music and CDs as a medium for storing and listening to it are gradually disappearing from our lives. The sale of Tower records is just another part of the process. Some of this music is truly great art, and exceptionally beautiful to listen to. I hope we can do something soon to reverse the trend.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Political Correctness Strikes Again!
The Headline in the Los Angeles Times proclaims: "Only Men Can Be Flashers, Judge Says." (Click the link to see the whole article)
Robert W. Armstrong, a Superior Court judge in Riverside, California, dismissed charges of indecent exposure against a woman who exposed herself to a 14-year-old boy. The judge claims that the law against indecent exposure applies only to a person who "...exposes his person..." The judge goes on to say that "Usually when a section proscribes conduct, it's 'his or her.' This one is not. It's gender specific."
Either the judge or his grammar teacher was drawn off the correct grammatical path by the idiotic, artificial constructions of the politically correct revisionists. As a result, a man may be prosecuted for flashing, but a woman will not. I respectfully submit that his honor should master grammar as completely as he has the law.
I have already stated that the use of fake pronouns like hu and his/her is not good grammar, but rather a waste of time. Now we can see that it's worse than that. It has actually twisted the administration of the law.
The rule in grammar is fairly straightforward: In the phrase cited above, the pronoun, his, is a reflexive pronoun; it refers back to the non-gender-specific noun, person. In such cases, grammarians explain, his takes on the non-gender-specific nature of person.
Only in the mind of a political correctness idiot is there a need to add the words, or her. If there were, in fact, a requirement to do this, all government bodies would be forced to review every law written before (circa) 1970 and to correct every instance of the non-gender specific his. Of course, the political correctness nuts would much prefer that we waste our time on such an effort rather than simply teach everyone correct grammar. They have already proposed that we re-write the Christian Bible to make God gender-neutral.
I am willing to concede that I learned both grammar and arithmetic in the middle of the last century. Since then we have found it neither desirable nor practical to change rules of arithmetic, such as 2 + 3 = 5. But the political correctness nuts would have us embrace a false belief that we can change people's attitudes by changing the rules of grammar.
Of course, if they really want it that way, all you women out their may expose yourselves whenever you want. I'm happy with that. But I am not allowed to expose myself in public. You will probably be happy with that.
Robert W. Armstrong, a Superior Court judge in Riverside, California, dismissed charges of indecent exposure against a woman who exposed herself to a 14-year-old boy. The judge claims that the law against indecent exposure applies only to a person who "...exposes his person..." The judge goes on to say that "Usually when a section proscribes conduct, it's 'his or her.' This one is not. It's gender specific."
Either the judge or his grammar teacher was drawn off the correct grammatical path by the idiotic, artificial constructions of the politically correct revisionists. As a result, a man may be prosecuted for flashing, but a woman will not. I respectfully submit that his honor should master grammar as completely as he has the law.
I have already stated that the use of fake pronouns like hu and his/her is not good grammar, but rather a waste of time. Now we can see that it's worse than that. It has actually twisted the administration of the law.
The rule in grammar is fairly straightforward: In the phrase cited above, the pronoun, his, is a reflexive pronoun; it refers back to the non-gender-specific noun, person. In such cases, grammarians explain, his takes on the non-gender-specific nature of person.
Only in the mind of a political correctness idiot is there a need to add the words, or her. If there were, in fact, a requirement to do this, all government bodies would be forced to review every law written before (circa) 1970 and to correct every instance of the non-gender specific his. Of course, the political correctness nuts would much prefer that we waste our time on such an effort rather than simply teach everyone correct grammar. They have already proposed that we re-write the Christian Bible to make God gender-neutral.
I am willing to concede that I learned both grammar and arithmetic in the middle of the last century. Since then we have found it neither desirable nor practical to change rules of arithmetic, such as 2 + 3 = 5. But the political correctness nuts would have us embrace a false belief that we can change people's attitudes by changing the rules of grammar.
Of course, if they really want it that way, all you women out their may expose yourselves whenever you want. I'm happy with that. But I am not allowed to expose myself in public. You will probably be happy with that.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Ozymandias
It has been said that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that. Some people who achieve great power and wealth become obsessed with the belief that they are great, and insist that we all pay them due homage.
Those who are truly great realize that their greatness only lasts a lifetime, or at most a few generations. They are humble. They can see greatness in the achievements, large and small, of other people. The British poet, Shelley, captured the folly of self-perceived greatness in one of my favorite sonnets:
OZYMANDIASby Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
