Years ago, I was involved in an angry dispute between management and six new employees. I was one of the six new employees. A few months after we were hired, we all realized that many of the things we had been promised simply were not going to happen. As a consequence, every single one of us submitted our resignations.
The CEO of the company quickly summoned us to a meeting, and asked about our grievances. He seemed sympathetic, and quite surprised that the company had lied to us and completely failed to fulfill their obligations. He agreed that we would all be justified in quitting, but asked what it would take to get us to stay. Surprised, we began to lay out our demands. After each demand, he would agree that it was reasonable, and turn to his second-in-command and instruct him to make it happen. Eventually, we all agreed to stay, and walked out of the meeting quite pleased with all that we had gained.
Days went by. Days turned to weeks, and weeks turned to months. NOTHING CHANGED. Not one of our demands was ever met; nothing that the CEO agreed to ever actually happened.
To this day, I do not know what transpired. All of us eventually left. I do not know whether we were consciously deceived, more than once, or if the CEO truly BELIEVED the changes would be made at the time he agreed to them, and then decided against it. Or perhaps the CEO's instructions were never carried out. I truly don't know. Looking back, it has taken on a dream-like quality. It's hard to believe they would agree to ALL of our demands, yet fulfill NONE of them.
Intentional or not, it was an amazing strategy. We entered the meeting disappointed, disgusted, and truly ready to quit. We left the meeting feeling happy, even elated, and ready to resume our duties with renewed vigor. We truly felt that someone had listened, and we had "won", despite all later evidence to the contrary.
When I tell other people about this incident, they seem shocked, even disbelieving, but I have come to conclude it is a variation on a fairly common occurence. Perhaps a more blatant version, but still, something that occurs commonly, and not just in negotiations.
Psychologically, it's much more complicated than simply broken promises. We went from being frustrated, disappointed, angry, and ready for a fight, to being pleased, relaxed, and feeling quite victorious. The fact that these feelings eventually were proved to be unjustified did not completely wipe them away, and the old feelings of anger never completely returned. Actually, it goes back to the idea of "cooling the mark out" -- making the victim of a con feel less bad about being victimized.
I have witnessed the same phenomenon at modern slot machines, when flashing lights and ringing bells convince the gambler that he or she has "won" -- when perhaps the gambler has "won" two cents on a forty-or-fifty cent bet.
Recently, my mind keeps returning to this idea as I watch President Obama, and especially as I watch videos of President Obama from months and years past. Somehow, President Obama seems almost immune from the charge of "broken promises". Instead, he seems to be able to make people feel, at least on some level, that he has done exactly what he said he WOULD do, or at least to feel good about his promises.
For example, he has repeatedly pledged "openness", promising that his administration would be the most open, transparent in history. Objectively, his administration has been one of the least open, at least in recent memory -- but on some level, people remain pleased about his openness. He SAID he would be open, therefore he IS open.
A more specific example: During his first Presidential campaign, he pledged that all potential legislation would be published on the internet for public review days before it was passed. This pledge has simply been ignored, yet on some level President Obama still gets credit for making the pledge.
Especially frustrating to me is the fact that President Obama routinely stresses that there is general agreement about ideas when the ideas are in fact hotly debated and controversial. On some level, the public accepts his statement regarding widespread agreement, just as they accept his repeated claims of a "balanced" approach to solving problems, when in fact his approach is generally totally one-sided.
Perhaps I should be looking back at my earlier thoughts regarding stranded travelers. Perhaps, since there is nothing anyone can DO about the Obama administration, it simply comes down to a choice of being unhappy, or trying to be as happy as possible in a bad situation -- and people are choosing to overlook the disappointing, disturbing facts and instead be happy with promises and misstatements. Examined from that angle, I don't suppose I should criticize anyone for trying to make the best of a bad Presidency.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Donald Sterling
There's a lot going on in the world right now. I suppose there always is, but this seems to be a particularly dangerous and deadly time, with natural disasters and international unrest. Recently, however, most American news outlets -- newspapers, radio, television, internet -- have included a notable degree of focus on the fallout from the released tape of a private telephone conversation. In the conversation, the wealthy owner of a sports team made comments involving race.
Since the tape was released to the national media -- at this point, the precise details of how and why the tape was made and distributed are murky -- the owner of the team has been universally condemned as racist. Among other punishments, he will be fined, and forced to sell his basketball team. The story has been front-page news on every newspaper, and covered on most radio and television news broadcasts, with the media in a virtual frenzy. By some accounts, the team owner has become the most despised man in America.
Only recently, many days after the story first "broke", have people begun to question the motivations of the person who apparently secretly made and released the tape -- an act which was quite possibly illegal. Still, the overwhelming amount of criticism is reserved not for the person who made and released the tape, but for the person who made the comments.
ANY conversation involving race has become a dangerous minefield. Curiously, the people speaking most freely about this incident on national television are the comedians. All others are simply jumping on the bandwagon of condemning the man and his comments without delving too deeply into the details.
If I was a public figure, or ever hoped to run for political office, or ever hoped to be hired for a job, I would be afraid to write what I am about to write. I am NOT defending the man or his comments, but my words could be twisted to claim that I was.
The fact is that we are dealing with comments made in a private phone conversation between two people. The man was NOT making a speech, or writing a book, article, or blog, or posting to Facebook. He was simply having a conversation. He did not say anything threatening. He did not lie. He did not slander or libel. He stated horribly-unpopular opinions in what he believed was a private phone conversation. (To be honest, I have not paid much attention to precisely what he said. It was a private phone conversation. It's none of my business.)
This is dangerously close to punishing someone for their thoughts. Actually, I suppose punishing someone for their opinions -- opinions rather than actions -- IS punishing them for their thoughts. (In this particular case, people point out that the team owner had a history of racism, and had actually been charged with racial discrimination in the past -- but the fact remains that at this time he is being punished NOT for past misdeeds, but for this particular conversation.)
The idea of punishing someone for their thoughts, no matter how reprehensible and disturbing those thoughts are, is, to me, even MORE reprehensible and disturbing. I believe that the greatest hope for solving our problems and living in a certain degree of harmony with each other comes from COMMUNICATION. Anything that interferes with that communication, or discourages that communication, poses a threat to our very survival.
I will close with a quote from the great folksinger Arlo Guthrie, whose father Woody Guthrie is perhaps best known for the song, "This Land is Your Land." In a live performance, Arlo stated, "... when people start bein' afraid that they're going to lose a job or lose some of this or that because of what they've got to say, it's gonna start to get dangerous. It's better to say the wrong thing than to feel like you ought not to say anything."
We cannot solve our problems by making people afraid to address them. We cannot bring about racial harmony by making people afraid to mention race. We cannot control our thoughts and opinions, we cannot force others to conform with our thoughts and opinions, and we should not punish others for their thoughts and opinions.
Truth is complicated.
Since the tape was released to the national media -- at this point, the precise details of how and why the tape was made and distributed are murky -- the owner of the team has been universally condemned as racist. Among other punishments, he will be fined, and forced to sell his basketball team. The story has been front-page news on every newspaper, and covered on most radio and television news broadcasts, with the media in a virtual frenzy. By some accounts, the team owner has become the most despised man in America.
Only recently, many days after the story first "broke", have people begun to question the motivations of the person who apparently secretly made and released the tape -- an act which was quite possibly illegal. Still, the overwhelming amount of criticism is reserved not for the person who made and released the tape, but for the person who made the comments.
ANY conversation involving race has become a dangerous minefield. Curiously, the people speaking most freely about this incident on national television are the comedians. All others are simply jumping on the bandwagon of condemning the man and his comments without delving too deeply into the details.
If I was a public figure, or ever hoped to run for political office, or ever hoped to be hired for a job, I would be afraid to write what I am about to write. I am NOT defending the man or his comments, but my words could be twisted to claim that I was.
The fact is that we are dealing with comments made in a private phone conversation between two people. The man was NOT making a speech, or writing a book, article, or blog, or posting to Facebook. He was simply having a conversation. He did not say anything threatening. He did not lie. He did not slander or libel. He stated horribly-unpopular opinions in what he believed was a private phone conversation. (To be honest, I have not paid much attention to precisely what he said. It was a private phone conversation. It's none of my business.)
This is dangerously close to punishing someone for their thoughts. Actually, I suppose punishing someone for their opinions -- opinions rather than actions -- IS punishing them for their thoughts. (In this particular case, people point out that the team owner had a history of racism, and had actually been charged with racial discrimination in the past -- but the fact remains that at this time he is being punished NOT for past misdeeds, but for this particular conversation.)
The idea of punishing someone for their thoughts, no matter how reprehensible and disturbing those thoughts are, is, to me, even MORE reprehensible and disturbing. I believe that the greatest hope for solving our problems and living in a certain degree of harmony with each other comes from COMMUNICATION. Anything that interferes with that communication, or discourages that communication, poses a threat to our very survival.
I will close with a quote from the great folksinger Arlo Guthrie, whose father Woody Guthrie is perhaps best known for the song, "This Land is Your Land." In a live performance, Arlo stated, "... when people start bein' afraid that they're going to lose a job or lose some of this or that because of what they've got to say, it's gonna start to get dangerous. It's better to say the wrong thing than to feel like you ought not to say anything."
We cannot solve our problems by making people afraid to address them. We cannot bring about racial harmony by making people afraid to mention race. We cannot control our thoughts and opinions, we cannot force others to conform with our thoughts and opinions, and we should not punish others for their thoughts and opinions.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Unintended Consequences
Today I read an article on the internet regarding a sex discrimination lawsuit. This is the first time I had heard of this particular lawsuit, and all of my information comes from that one long, detailed article. From the article, it's impossible for me to discern whether or not the lawsuit is justified. A woman worked for a large corporation, rising through the ranks to a vice president there, and earning over a million dollars per year. The article states that in her final year employed with the company, she reported fourteen million dollars of income, including stock options that she cashed in.
In going over the paperwork after the company was sold, the woman realized that a man who had previously worked for the company -- a man she identifies as her "predecessor" -- earned significantly more money than she did. The company contends, however, that the man's job was different than the job occupied by the woman, involving far more responsibility, and that both the man and the woman were paid fairly for the particular duties that they performed. The company further contends that the woman was paid a salary similar to what she would have been paid for performing the same duties with a different company. The woman disagrees, and argues that throughout her employment with the company she was subjected to different treatment than the male employees.
From the information available to me, I have no idea whether or not the lawsuit is justified. It's always difficult to compare the pay of two different employees, since employees rarely have precisely the same qualifications, backgrounds, and talents, and since employees rarely perform precisely the same jobs. I think that most people would agree that two identically-qualified and identically-capable people performing the same job in the same region at the same time deserve the same pay, regardless of gender -- but in the real world, there are an infinite number of variables that complicate the issue.
What strikes me, however, was my initial response after reading the article. I immediately thought to myself, "Under the circumstances, it would be a foolish risk for a major corporation to hire a woman, if they could find a man that could perform the job just as well. Why would any corporation open themselves up to the risk of a sex discrimination lawsuit? It would be irresponsible."
I am not proud of these thoughts, and believe that a person's gender should have no role in hiring decisions. At the same time, it's difficult to argue with my initial reaction to the article. Why WOULD a corporation take the risk of hiring a woman, when the risk could be avoided by simply not hiring her in the first place? Of course, then there is the risk of being sued for not hiring her. Here again, since no two people are precisely identical, it's always difficult to say which candidate is truly the best for the job.
I can take some solace in realizing that I will never be involved in the hiring/firing decisions for any company. I have never had any employees, and probably never will. In terms of the people that I pay to perform tasks -- people like doctors and lawyers and barbers -- I have dealt with both men and women in each role, and I have never been aware of their gender playing any role in the job performance, or in the fees I have paid them. Crucially, though, all of these people set their own fees, or at least, they send me a bill, and I pay it. I do not decide how much their job is worth.
Still, I keep coming back to my response to the article. After reading the article, it truly DOES seem irresponsible to even CONSIDER hiring a woman for an important position, and therefore risking a major sex-discrimination lawsuit. And I doubt that I am the only one who would come to that same conclusion. So, by filing the lawsuit, the original plaintiff ends up discouraging employers from hiring female executives.
I am NOT saying she was wrong to file the lawsuit. I AM saying this is a classic case of unintended consequences. By filing the lawsuit, she is contributing to sex discrimination in the workplace -- the very thing she is supposedly fighting against.
I have no answers here. Truth is complicated.
NOTE: This is my first blog entry in a LONG time. The reasons for my long absence, appropriately enough, are complicated ...
In going over the paperwork after the company was sold, the woman realized that a man who had previously worked for the company -- a man she identifies as her "predecessor" -- earned significantly more money than she did. The company contends, however, that the man's job was different than the job occupied by the woman, involving far more responsibility, and that both the man and the woman were paid fairly for the particular duties that they performed. The company further contends that the woman was paid a salary similar to what she would have been paid for performing the same duties with a different company. The woman disagrees, and argues that throughout her employment with the company she was subjected to different treatment than the male employees.
From the information available to me, I have no idea whether or not the lawsuit is justified. It's always difficult to compare the pay of two different employees, since employees rarely have precisely the same qualifications, backgrounds, and talents, and since employees rarely perform precisely the same jobs. I think that most people would agree that two identically-qualified and identically-capable people performing the same job in the same region at the same time deserve the same pay, regardless of gender -- but in the real world, there are an infinite number of variables that complicate the issue.
What strikes me, however, was my initial response after reading the article. I immediately thought to myself, "Under the circumstances, it would be a foolish risk for a major corporation to hire a woman, if they could find a man that could perform the job just as well. Why would any corporation open themselves up to the risk of a sex discrimination lawsuit? It would be irresponsible."
I am not proud of these thoughts, and believe that a person's gender should have no role in hiring decisions. At the same time, it's difficult to argue with my initial reaction to the article. Why WOULD a corporation take the risk of hiring a woman, when the risk could be avoided by simply not hiring her in the first place? Of course, then there is the risk of being sued for not hiring her. Here again, since no two people are precisely identical, it's always difficult to say which candidate is truly the best for the job.
I can take some solace in realizing that I will never be involved in the hiring/firing decisions for any company. I have never had any employees, and probably never will. In terms of the people that I pay to perform tasks -- people like doctors and lawyers and barbers -- I have dealt with both men and women in each role, and I have never been aware of their gender playing any role in the job performance, or in the fees I have paid them. Crucially, though, all of these people set their own fees, or at least, they send me a bill, and I pay it. I do not decide how much their job is worth.
Still, I keep coming back to my response to the article. After reading the article, it truly DOES seem irresponsible to even CONSIDER hiring a woman for an important position, and therefore risking a major sex-discrimination lawsuit. And I doubt that I am the only one who would come to that same conclusion. So, by filing the lawsuit, the original plaintiff ends up discouraging employers from hiring female executives.
I am NOT saying she was wrong to file the lawsuit. I AM saying this is a classic case of unintended consequences. By filing the lawsuit, she is contributing to sex discrimination in the workplace -- the very thing she is supposedly fighting against.
I have no answers here. Truth is complicated.
NOTE: This is my first blog entry in a LONG time. The reasons for my long absence, appropriately enough, are complicated ...
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Ridiculous
One of the tricks in life is knowing the difference between the ridiculous and the reasonable.
My community has weekly outdoor municipal band concerts during the summer, as they have had for most of the last century. The concerts are financed by "the city"; band members are considered temporary city employees. Recently, the city council announced they were making various budget cuts, including ending the concerts. The concerts don't cost much, so cutting them from the budget didn't save much money, but it was a high-profile cutback -- something that everyone noticed. A concerned citizen stepped forward with enough money to finance the concerts for several years. Since that time, more citizens have come forward with cash, and the concerts have continued uninterrupted with no more city funding. It has all been quite reasonable.
My favorite high school teacher used to regularly include some "joke" answers on his multiple choice history exams. So, for example, even if a student did not know precisely who the "condottieri" were, he or she might be able to correctly rule out that they were the Superbowl champions from 1970. You would THINK that this would make the exams slightly easier. Imagine my surprise in learning that the CORRECT answer to one of the questions was an answer that I had ruled out as a joke, "the Venerable Bede".
This points out the fact that it is not always easy to distinguish between the ridiculous and the reasonable. People hold a wide variety of beliefs. I have known for some time that the "Flat Earth Society" continues to exist, at least on paper, but I only recently learned it is not strictly a joke. There really ARE people who claim to still believe that the earth is flat, just as there are even more people who claim to still believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Then there is politics. Some of the positions taken by politicians and their parties and supporters seem to defy all logic, yet there are large numbers of people who accept these positions as reasonable.
The United States government is trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt is growing at a shocking rate, yet many politicians, and regular citizens, argue that we do not have a spending problem. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama fights any effort to cut spending, arguing that the IMPORTANT thing is to raise taxes on "the rich". Perhaps after we do THAT, he will be willing to consider spending cuts.
Now we have "the sequester", a set of government spending limits (not necessarily cuts) that kicked in automatically after the various political bodies were unable to reach any better compromise. Critics of President Obama argued in advance of the sequester that he was misrepresenting the potential impact of the sequester, and would purposely TRY to make the impact as painful as possible.
When the sequester came, it was soon announced that there would be no more tours of the White House, due to funding cuts caused by the sequester. In response to the public outcry, billionaire Donald Trump eventually offered that he would personally pay for continuing the White House tours (an amount which it seems he could easily afford, based on the available information about his wealth and income, and the cost of the tours).
I would have thought this would be the end of this part of the story. The American people want to be able to tour their White House, many people want to reduce government spending, President Obama wants "the rich" to pay more, and Donald Trump is rich. The tours would continue, government spending would be reduced, and the rich would pay more. Everybody wins.
I was wrong. A White House "senior adviser" rejected Donald Trump's offer, stating that it is important that the American public learn that there are real consequences of the sequester. Apparently, we have misbehaved, and now must face the consequences, rather than have rich Donald Trump take care of the problem.
To me, this seems quite ridiculous. IF cutting the tours was truly necessary for economic reasons, and a rich person is offering to pay for the tours, then why haven't the tours already been restored? Is the Obama administration really willing to continue to block the tours, just to attempt to teach the American people a lesson?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this issue is that there are those who attacked Donald Trump for making the offer, and defended President Obama. I am not saying there is nothing to attack about Donald Trump, but if a rich person offers to pay for something, no strings attached, and the President continues to argue that we don't have enough money to pay for it ... it all seems quite ridiculous. But perhaps I am missing something. I MUST be missing something. It CAN'T be that ridiculous.
Trump's offer was many months ago. Someday soon, the tours will resume, at least on a limited basis, and the Obama administration will take credit, and ask for gratitude, for dealing with a problem that they themselves created. THAT seems ridiculous.
Truth is complicated.
My community has weekly outdoor municipal band concerts during the summer, as they have had for most of the last century. The concerts are financed by "the city"; band members are considered temporary city employees. Recently, the city council announced they were making various budget cuts, including ending the concerts. The concerts don't cost much, so cutting them from the budget didn't save much money, but it was a high-profile cutback -- something that everyone noticed. A concerned citizen stepped forward with enough money to finance the concerts for several years. Since that time, more citizens have come forward with cash, and the concerts have continued uninterrupted with no more city funding. It has all been quite reasonable.
My favorite high school teacher used to regularly include some "joke" answers on his multiple choice history exams. So, for example, even if a student did not know precisely who the "condottieri" were, he or she might be able to correctly rule out that they were the Superbowl champions from 1970. You would THINK that this would make the exams slightly easier. Imagine my surprise in learning that the CORRECT answer to one of the questions was an answer that I had ruled out as a joke, "the Venerable Bede".
This points out the fact that it is not always easy to distinguish between the ridiculous and the reasonable. People hold a wide variety of beliefs. I have known for some time that the "Flat Earth Society" continues to exist, at least on paper, but I only recently learned it is not strictly a joke. There really ARE people who claim to still believe that the earth is flat, just as there are even more people who claim to still believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Then there is politics. Some of the positions taken by politicians and their parties and supporters seem to defy all logic, yet there are large numbers of people who accept these positions as reasonable.
The United States government is trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt is growing at a shocking rate, yet many politicians, and regular citizens, argue that we do not have a spending problem. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama fights any effort to cut spending, arguing that the IMPORTANT thing is to raise taxes on "the rich". Perhaps after we do THAT, he will be willing to consider spending cuts.
Now we have "the sequester", a set of government spending limits (not necessarily cuts) that kicked in automatically after the various political bodies were unable to reach any better compromise. Critics of President Obama argued in advance of the sequester that he was misrepresenting the potential impact of the sequester, and would purposely TRY to make the impact as painful as possible.
When the sequester came, it was soon announced that there would be no more tours of the White House, due to funding cuts caused by the sequester. In response to the public outcry, billionaire Donald Trump eventually offered that he would personally pay for continuing the White House tours (an amount which it seems he could easily afford, based on the available information about his wealth and income, and the cost of the tours).
I would have thought this would be the end of this part of the story. The American people want to be able to tour their White House, many people want to reduce government spending, President Obama wants "the rich" to pay more, and Donald Trump is rich. The tours would continue, government spending would be reduced, and the rich would pay more. Everybody wins.
I was wrong. A White House "senior adviser" rejected Donald Trump's offer, stating that it is important that the American public learn that there are real consequences of the sequester. Apparently, we have misbehaved, and now must face the consequences, rather than have rich Donald Trump take care of the problem.
To me, this seems quite ridiculous. IF cutting the tours was truly necessary for economic reasons, and a rich person is offering to pay for the tours, then why haven't the tours already been restored? Is the Obama administration really willing to continue to block the tours, just to attempt to teach the American people a lesson?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this issue is that there are those who attacked Donald Trump for making the offer, and defended President Obama. I am not saying there is nothing to attack about Donald Trump, but if a rich person offers to pay for something, no strings attached, and the President continues to argue that we don't have enough money to pay for it ... it all seems quite ridiculous. But perhaps I am missing something. I MUST be missing something. It CAN'T be that ridiculous.
Trump's offer was many months ago. Someday soon, the tours will resume, at least on a limited basis, and the Obama administration will take credit, and ask for gratitude, for dealing with a problem that they themselves created. THAT seems ridiculous.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Trayvon Martin
A young man named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by another man during an altercation. The details of the altercation, and the events leading up to the altercation, will never be precisely known. The shooter claimed self defense; the law allows the use of deadly force to protect your own life. The man was placed on trial for murder and/or manslaughter, and found "not guilty" of breaking the law.
Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent. Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT. Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.
I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty. There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.
There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case. The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.
Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened. Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened. IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty". The jury did their best with the available evidence. The case SHOULD be closed.
The verdict has been controversial and unpopular. As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty". I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING. It is tragic that a young man died. It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.
Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America. At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details. Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.
Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws. The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.
The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward. The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court. Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice. The case is, and should be, closed.
Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent. Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT. Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.
I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty. There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.
There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case. The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.
Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened. Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened. IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty". The jury did their best with the available evidence. The case SHOULD be closed.
The verdict has been controversial and unpopular. As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty". I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING. It is tragic that a young man died. It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.
Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America. At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details. Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.
Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws. The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.
The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward. The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court. Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice. The case is, and should be, closed.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
100 years old
Last Monday, I celebrated Mother's Day with my mother and a few other relatives. There was a special meal, cards, flowers, and other gifts.
The "official" Mother's Day was Sunday, but Sunday was one of those days when my mother had trouble waking up. My mother is one hundred years old. Technically, one hundred and a half -- slightly closer to one hundred and one; somehow, the half years seem significant again in the very old, as they are in the very young. She has lived a good, happy, long life, and now her time is drawing to a close. She is weak and frail, both mentally and physically, and is slowly declining.
When anyone asks me about her health, the hardest thing to describe is the dramatic variability in her mental status from day to day. She has several different types of "bad" days. Some days, she is almost comatose, and almost impossible to rouse at all. Very rarely, she does not recognize the people closest to her. On the very worst days, she is agitated and worried, often about things that cannot be defined, or that seem impossible to worry about.
On her best days, she is almost crystal clear, mentally -- though I doubt she is ever one hundred percent clear now. There are also those days when she approaches mania, and finds it almost impossible to stop talking. Those are not horrible days, since she is sometimes able to tell long-forgotten stories or sing long-forgotten songs.
(Music has always been important to Mom, and seems almost more important now. She will often sing a fragment of a song, and then wonder what the rest of the song is. Armed with a certain amount of musical knowledge and the internet, she has yet to stump me.)
Most days, she is somewhere between these various extremes. When people inquire about her condition, and I attempt to tell them, I often feel that they suspect I am being evasive, or sugar-coating the situation, when I tell them her condition constantly changes, but is always declining.
Crucially, she is uncommonly pleasant and happy almost all of the time, except on those few days when she is agitated and worried. Even when she cannot seem to wake up, she will smile when someone speaks to her.
Physically, she grows weaker and thinner each day. She does not eat much, or enough, and is in danger of falling when she walks, even with a cane -- though until recently she has been able to get out of bed and walk to the bathroom without assistance. She also has a "walker" and a wheelchair for different occasions.
Which brings up the fact that she can no longer live without the assistance of others. For now, she lives with family members, though it is altogether possible that she may someday live in an institution of some sort. This gets complicated, as caring for her is simultaneously a blessing and an almost-unbearable burden. Among other things, there are never-ending philosophical questions involving issues of whether to keep her alive or let her go -- such as how hard to try to get her to eat more, and whether to urge her to get out of bed.
Anyone who has cared for her -- that is, who has taken care of her -- in recent years has had the experience of suspecting she would not survive the next few hours, let alone days. So far, she always rallies and bounces back from the edge of life. Logic dictates that she grows closer to death every day, as all of us do. Logic also dictates that her death, when it comes, should not come as a shock to those she leaves behind, but I suspect that it still will.
Personally, I have long realized that one of the ways I cope with difficult situations is by becoming increasingly analytical -- I step back from the situation, mentally, and view it as a scientist would, noting my own responses and emotions, and thinking, "Isn't that interesting!"
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Stranded Travelers
A few weeks ago, an engine fire on a cruise ship left over four thousand passengers and crew essentially stranded, dead in the water, onboard ship in the Gulf of Mexico. Once the initial fire was put out, no one was in any immediate danger, but there was no particularly safe way to get the people off of the vessel in the middle of the water, so the ship had to be slowly towed to port with everyone still aboard. The details are controversial, but the ship was left with only emergency generators providing minimal electricity. Food and other supplies were delivered from other sources, but there was no air conditioning, and basic sanitation was said to be a problem. It took almost a week for the ship to reach land.
The entire incident was covered by the news media. I watched live on television as the ship finally docked. Several of the passengers were interviewed by cell phone as they prepared to disembark. Most of the interviews that I heard were quite similar. The interviewer would ask the passengers about their horrible ordeal, and the passengers would reply that it really wasn't that bad. They stressed the fact that the crew did everything it could to alleviate their discomfort. When interviewers asked about the lack of food, the passengers responded that food was regularly delivered, and plentiful and quite good, though they mentioned having to wait in long lines for their food. The interviewers became frustrated, trying to get the passengers to complain and discuss their "hellish experience". Now and then, a passenger would agree that the experience was indeed horrendous, but most would dispute that idea and attempt to correct the interviewer.
This response was not universal. Some of the passengers complained bitterly about their experience. As I type, lawsuits are pending.
I got to thinking about my own experiences with being a stranded traveler. I am NOT saying I have ever experienced anything like being stranded on a cruise ship for a week. I was not there, and I do not know the details, and I do not know how bad it was. I am in no position to offer an opinion on their particular ordeal.
(I have elsewhere discussed my general position on those seeking monetary awards for "damages". Since any money awarded will come from insurance premiums and ultimately from the shared resources of the entire population, I continue to question why being stranded on a cruise ship entitles anyone to a large cash award.)
On more than one occasion, I have been stranded in airports. Once, while awaiting departure from Paris, a mechanical problem was found on board our plane (well, technically, a jet). The passengers had already cleared customs, and were kept in a large waiting room while they tried first to remedy the problem, then bring in a fresh aircraft. All in all, we were in that waiting room for six to eight hours -- not much of an ordeal, especially since we had access to bathrooms and water; I do not recall having any access to food, other than that already possessed by the passengers.
The thing that stands out in my memory about that experience, and others like it, was that the stranded travelers ended up falling into two groups. One group made the best of a bad situation, producing and sharing whatever they had to make the experience more pleasant -- food, drinks, playing cards, other games, even musical instruments. The other group sat glumly when they were not complaining or demanding that the situation be immediately rectified. Perhaps most interestingly, that group became quite irritated with those of us who were NOT complaining, and who were happily making the best of a bad situation.
I have happy memories of that day stranded in the Paris airport, and of another day stranded at the airport in Asuncion, Paraguay, and of a night spent stranded on a train in the middle of nowhere -- a train which did, by the way, run out of food and drink. All of those experiences were adventures for me, and all of those experiences also included glum, angry travelers complaining bitterly.
I must acknowledge that my personal experiences with being a stranded traveler never involved a feeling that I was being mistreated by those responsible for my well-being. When our plane was grounded due to a mechanical problem, I was GLAD that they had discovered the problem before takeoff. When our train had to remain motionless for hours while a team arrived to investigate a collision, I understood the need to wait for the investigators. Things happen.
I COULD expand this discussion into other areas of life, beyond being a stranded traveler, but I would rather not. The nice thing, in terms of discussion, about being a stranded traveler is that you really only have two choices: You can do your best to be happy, or you can be unhappy. There's not much else you can do. You generally cannot personally fix the airplane or the train or the cruise ship (although, in the case of the airport in Paraguay, I was eventually able to secure cold water for all the waiting passengers ... not by complaining, but by being helpful and friendly and using my minimal Spanish).
The rest of life gets more complicated.
Regarding the large amounts of cash being sought by some of the cruise ship passengers:
The passengers may have had horrible experiences; possibly worse than I can imagine. At the very least, they were deprived of their expected pleasure cruise, and kept at sea for longer than they expected to be there -- and their extended period at sea may have caused countless problems, including missed work, lost wages, and other unanticipated expenses. IF it can be shown that human error was involved in their misfortune, then the humans involved should be fined, fired, or otherwise penalized. Still, I fail to see where the large sums of cash are supposed to come from, or why the passengers are entitled to large sums of cash based on having had a horrible experience. Perhaps if human error was involved, they should at least be compensated for any monetary expense that they incurred. IF there was no clear human error -- if it was just a horrible accident -- then I believe we all should offer them our sympathy, but nothing more.
Life involves risk. When you sail on a cruise ship, YOU dramatically increase the odds of being stranded at sea. The crew and company executives have nothing to gain by you becoming stranded, and will strive to prevent it, but it may happen anyway. OR you may fall off the ship, or the ship may wreck, or you may have a medical emergency and be far from a hospital. All of these risks can be minimized by not boarding the ship in the first place. It's up to YOU.
The entire incident was covered by the news media. I watched live on television as the ship finally docked. Several of the passengers were interviewed by cell phone as they prepared to disembark. Most of the interviews that I heard were quite similar. The interviewer would ask the passengers about their horrible ordeal, and the passengers would reply that it really wasn't that bad. They stressed the fact that the crew did everything it could to alleviate their discomfort. When interviewers asked about the lack of food, the passengers responded that food was regularly delivered, and plentiful and quite good, though they mentioned having to wait in long lines for their food. The interviewers became frustrated, trying to get the passengers to complain and discuss their "hellish experience". Now and then, a passenger would agree that the experience was indeed horrendous, but most would dispute that idea and attempt to correct the interviewer.
This response was not universal. Some of the passengers complained bitterly about their experience. As I type, lawsuits are pending.
I got to thinking about my own experiences with being a stranded traveler. I am NOT saying I have ever experienced anything like being stranded on a cruise ship for a week. I was not there, and I do not know the details, and I do not know how bad it was. I am in no position to offer an opinion on their particular ordeal.
(I have elsewhere discussed my general position on those seeking monetary awards for "damages". Since any money awarded will come from insurance premiums and ultimately from the shared resources of the entire population, I continue to question why being stranded on a cruise ship entitles anyone to a large cash award.)
On more than one occasion, I have been stranded in airports. Once, while awaiting departure from Paris, a mechanical problem was found on board our plane (well, technically, a jet). The passengers had already cleared customs, and were kept in a large waiting room while they tried first to remedy the problem, then bring in a fresh aircraft. All in all, we were in that waiting room for six to eight hours -- not much of an ordeal, especially since we had access to bathrooms and water; I do not recall having any access to food, other than that already possessed by the passengers.
The thing that stands out in my memory about that experience, and others like it, was that the stranded travelers ended up falling into two groups. One group made the best of a bad situation, producing and sharing whatever they had to make the experience more pleasant -- food, drinks, playing cards, other games, even musical instruments. The other group sat glumly when they were not complaining or demanding that the situation be immediately rectified. Perhaps most interestingly, that group became quite irritated with those of us who were NOT complaining, and who were happily making the best of a bad situation.
I have happy memories of that day stranded in the Paris airport, and of another day stranded at the airport in Asuncion, Paraguay, and of a night spent stranded on a train in the middle of nowhere -- a train which did, by the way, run out of food and drink. All of those experiences were adventures for me, and all of those experiences also included glum, angry travelers complaining bitterly.
I must acknowledge that my personal experiences with being a stranded traveler never involved a feeling that I was being mistreated by those responsible for my well-being. When our plane was grounded due to a mechanical problem, I was GLAD that they had discovered the problem before takeoff. When our train had to remain motionless for hours while a team arrived to investigate a collision, I understood the need to wait for the investigators. Things happen.
I COULD expand this discussion into other areas of life, beyond being a stranded traveler, but I would rather not. The nice thing, in terms of discussion, about being a stranded traveler is that you really only have two choices: You can do your best to be happy, or you can be unhappy. There's not much else you can do. You generally cannot personally fix the airplane or the train or the cruise ship (although, in the case of the airport in Paraguay, I was eventually able to secure cold water for all the waiting passengers ... not by complaining, but by being helpful and friendly and using my minimal Spanish).
The rest of life gets more complicated.
Regarding the large amounts of cash being sought by some of the cruise ship passengers:
The passengers may have had horrible experiences; possibly worse than I can imagine. At the very least, they were deprived of their expected pleasure cruise, and kept at sea for longer than they expected to be there -- and their extended period at sea may have caused countless problems, including missed work, lost wages, and other unanticipated expenses. IF it can be shown that human error was involved in their misfortune, then the humans involved should be fined, fired, or otherwise penalized. Still, I fail to see where the large sums of cash are supposed to come from, or why the passengers are entitled to large sums of cash based on having had a horrible experience. Perhaps if human error was involved, they should at least be compensated for any monetary expense that they incurred. IF there was no clear human error -- if it was just a horrible accident -- then I believe we all should offer them our sympathy, but nothing more.
Life involves risk. When you sail on a cruise ship, YOU dramatically increase the odds of being stranded at sea. The crew and company executives have nothing to gain by you becoming stranded, and will strive to prevent it, but it may happen anyway. OR you may fall off the ship, or the ship may wreck, or you may have a medical emergency and be far from a hospital. All of these risks can be minimized by not boarding the ship in the first place. It's up to YOU.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Gun Control
For years, but especially over the last month, I have thought, watched, heard, read, and talked about the subject of school shootings. I consider the larger, more inclusive issue of "gun control" to be among the most difficult issues of our time -- and by "difficult" I mean that the issue is complicated, with no good, clear solutions or answers, and thoughtful, rational, intelligent, passionate people on various sides.
The thing that makes the more specific issue of school shootings even worse, and the reason I am reluctant to write about it, is that it involves horrible, senseless tragedy. There is nothing I -- nor anyone else -- can say, write, or do to bring back the victims, or to lessen the overwhelming, crushing pain of the survivors and loved ones of the victims. In a way, it seems obscene to discuss these incidents in terms of statistics, or intellectual or philosophical arguments.
In fact, I believe quite strongly that there is only ONE thing that we, as a society, can do that will definitely lessen the frequency and number of victims of future school shootings: Quit publicizing them! Quit showing them on television, quit having national discussions about them. That is the ONLY sure-fire way to combat them. However, in a free society, with a free press, that is not going to happen.
So I am left to discuss the issue in mostly in terms of intellectual and philosophical arguments (I will leave the statistics to others, at least for now) -- which is NOT what the loved ones of the victims want to hear, and I cannot blame them.
As with most troubling, divisive, controversial issues, school shootings and gun violence involve a number of related and complicated philosophical issues. One of the most basic is the issue of control. As the human race marches forward through time, we like to believe we are achieving increasing control over the world around us. We do not want to hear that something "just happens" -- we want to assign responsibility and blame, and we want to vow to prevent it from happening again. In fact, I would argue that one of the more destructive forces in human nature is the need to "do something!" Often, there is simply nothing to be done -- a fact which few of our political leaders have the courage to embrace.
The most recent school mass shooting particularly lends itself to oversimplification and false arguments. A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States say something to the effect of, "If we can do something that might save even one life, then we must DO it!" On the face of it, this is a compelling argument, especially when the President surrounded himself with children as he said it. On closer examination, it is absurd. We could save many human lives by banning automobiles, and some by banning all forms of mass transit -- planes, trains, even boats. Every year, people are electrocuted; we could stop using electricity. Sporting events account for deaths every year; there is no definite human "need" for sports. And the list goes on.
I expect that those who agree with the President would counter with the argument that whereas we NEED automobiles and planes and trains and boats and electricity -- and possibly even sports -- there is no compelling "need" for the right to bear arms. The TRUTH is that the President is NOT simply interested in the possibility of saving a single human life -- he is interested specifically in doing things that he claims may decrease the likelihood of shootings, and only by decreasing the availability of guns.
One of the problems with this discussion is that it easily leads off in many different directions, like a maze. I COULD focus on the fact that all of the President's ideas are pure conjecture, and while many of them may sound "obvious" there is little objective, factual support for the idea that they might "save even one life".
I will instead focus on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There continues to be debate over the precise intentions of these words. In recent decades, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, some attempted to argue that the term "militia" referred to government organizations such as the National Guard. The founding fathers were quite clear on this point, with George Mason, one of the writers of the amendment, stating, “What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Mason also wrote, "“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army.” The entire POINT of the Second Amendment is for INDIVIDUALS to retain their firearms so that they might rise up against our own or foreign armies. Incidentally, this view -- the individual right to bear arms -- has been clarified and accepted by Supreme Court decisions.
In the modern world, we do and require lots of things to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies. We design our buildings to attempt to withstand floods, earthquakes, storms, and fires. To prepare for and prevent fires, we install sprinkler systems and smoke detectors, and we have fire extinguishers at the ready. Our automobiles have seat belts and air bags, and are constructed to protect us from injury in the event of a collision. These are just a few examples.
My mother, who is 100 years old, has always scoffed at such preparations. Her general logic is along the lines of, "I have lived in this house for over fifty years, and there has never been a fire, or an earthquake, or a tornado, and therefore there never WILL be, and it is foolish to prepare for such things. And I have never been in a significant automobile collision where I would have needed seat belts or airbags, so there is no reason for them." Furthermore, she has never called the police, the fire department, or an ambulance. Perhaps there is no need for any of these things.
I must confess that I, too, have never had need of seat belts, or airbags, or smoke detectors, or fire extinguishers, yet I accept the fact that they, along with the police, fire department, and ambulance services, are all good ideas.
This is the same way that I view the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the citizens' right to bear arms. The founders of the United States of America believed quite strongly that circumstances might arise calling for the citizens to have weapons capable of defending against foreign armies or the tyranny of our own government. That is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They were NOT concerned about being allowed weapons for hunting small game -- they were concerned about being able to fight against other armed humans.
So far, I have never needed to possess an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to defend myself against tyranny, just as I have never needed seat belts or a fire extinguisher. I suppose my mother would argue that since I have never needed such weapons, I will never need them. Still, I accept the fact that they are all good ideas. I view the concept of banning these weapons just as I would view the concept of banning seat belts or fire extinguishers. All are intended to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies, and it would be morally wrong -- not to mention stupid -- to eliminate them.
Some will argue, "Wait! Each year, innocent people are harmed by people using guns!" I would reply that each year, innocent people are harmed by people using cars -- and cars are NOT necessary to preserve all of our freedoms, including the freedom to drive cars. Most dangerous things are NOT necessary to preserve our freedom. Guns ARE necessary to preserve our freedom, should the worst case arise.
Personally, I am willing to accept the possibility of stupid, needless, tragic deaths, in order that our civilized, free society might survive.
Ultimately, this is the debate, and the problem for which I see no solution. Some of us believe that firearms are a crucial safety device, perhaps the very foundations of our rights, liberties, and our way of life -- whereas others simply scoff at this view, arguing that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" are "used only to kill people, and are therefore unnecessary in modern, civilized, society." Scoffing at and dismissing the views of those who disagree with you is never a fruitful way to begin a discussion, yet it is the normal, typical way for President Obama to do business. President Obama wants us to "stand up to the gun lobby". President Obama refuses to acknowledge that millions of Americans -- Americans who have nothing to do with the National Rifle Association, and who have no financial interest in firearms -- are simply concerned with upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, a Constitution that has nothing to do with "hunting", and everything to do with protecting individual liberty and the rights of the minority.
Perhaps the time has come that we can no longer afford to be concerned with individual liberty, when we must let the government assume control over our choices and our lives, in the interest of saving "even one life". If that is what President Obama believes, then he should SAY what he believes -- that is, that he wishes to do away with the Second Amendment and assume additional power. Then, and only then, can we at least begin an honest discussion.
Truth is complicated.
The thing that makes the more specific issue of school shootings even worse, and the reason I am reluctant to write about it, is that it involves horrible, senseless tragedy. There is nothing I -- nor anyone else -- can say, write, or do to bring back the victims, or to lessen the overwhelming, crushing pain of the survivors and loved ones of the victims. In a way, it seems obscene to discuss these incidents in terms of statistics, or intellectual or philosophical arguments.
In fact, I believe quite strongly that there is only ONE thing that we, as a society, can do that will definitely lessen the frequency and number of victims of future school shootings: Quit publicizing them! Quit showing them on television, quit having national discussions about them. That is the ONLY sure-fire way to combat them. However, in a free society, with a free press, that is not going to happen.
So I am left to discuss the issue in mostly in terms of intellectual and philosophical arguments (I will leave the statistics to others, at least for now) -- which is NOT what the loved ones of the victims want to hear, and I cannot blame them.
As with most troubling, divisive, controversial issues, school shootings and gun violence involve a number of related and complicated philosophical issues. One of the most basic is the issue of control. As the human race marches forward through time, we like to believe we are achieving increasing control over the world around us. We do not want to hear that something "just happens" -- we want to assign responsibility and blame, and we want to vow to prevent it from happening again. In fact, I would argue that one of the more destructive forces in human nature is the need to "do something!" Often, there is simply nothing to be done -- a fact which few of our political leaders have the courage to embrace.
The most recent school mass shooting particularly lends itself to oversimplification and false arguments. A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States say something to the effect of, "If we can do something that might save even one life, then we must DO it!" On the face of it, this is a compelling argument, especially when the President surrounded himself with children as he said it. On closer examination, it is absurd. We could save many human lives by banning automobiles, and some by banning all forms of mass transit -- planes, trains, even boats. Every year, people are electrocuted; we could stop using electricity. Sporting events account for deaths every year; there is no definite human "need" for sports. And the list goes on.
I expect that those who agree with the President would counter with the argument that whereas we NEED automobiles and planes and trains and boats and electricity -- and possibly even sports -- there is no compelling "need" for the right to bear arms. The TRUTH is that the President is NOT simply interested in the possibility of saving a single human life -- he is interested specifically in doing things that he claims may decrease the likelihood of shootings, and only by decreasing the availability of guns.
One of the problems with this discussion is that it easily leads off in many different directions, like a maze. I COULD focus on the fact that all of the President's ideas are pure conjecture, and while many of them may sound "obvious" there is little objective, factual support for the idea that they might "save even one life".
I will instead focus on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There continues to be debate over the precise intentions of these words. In recent decades, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, some attempted to argue that the term "militia" referred to government organizations such as the National Guard. The founding fathers were quite clear on this point, with George Mason, one of the writers of the amendment, stating, “What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Mason also wrote, "“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army.” The entire POINT of the Second Amendment is for INDIVIDUALS to retain their firearms so that they might rise up against our own or foreign armies. Incidentally, this view -- the individual right to bear arms -- has been clarified and accepted by Supreme Court decisions.
In the modern world, we do and require lots of things to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies. We design our buildings to attempt to withstand floods, earthquakes, storms, and fires. To prepare for and prevent fires, we install sprinkler systems and smoke detectors, and we have fire extinguishers at the ready. Our automobiles have seat belts and air bags, and are constructed to protect us from injury in the event of a collision. These are just a few examples.
My mother, who is 100 years old, has always scoffed at such preparations. Her general logic is along the lines of, "I have lived in this house for over fifty years, and there has never been a fire, or an earthquake, or a tornado, and therefore there never WILL be, and it is foolish to prepare for such things. And I have never been in a significant automobile collision where I would have needed seat belts or airbags, so there is no reason for them." Furthermore, she has never called the police, the fire department, or an ambulance. Perhaps there is no need for any of these things.
I must confess that I, too, have never had need of seat belts, or airbags, or smoke detectors, or fire extinguishers, yet I accept the fact that they, along with the police, fire department, and ambulance services, are all good ideas.
This is the same way that I view the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the citizens' right to bear arms. The founders of the United States of America believed quite strongly that circumstances might arise calling for the citizens to have weapons capable of defending against foreign armies or the tyranny of our own government. That is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They were NOT concerned about being allowed weapons for hunting small game -- they were concerned about being able to fight against other armed humans.
So far, I have never needed to possess an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to defend myself against tyranny, just as I have never needed seat belts or a fire extinguisher. I suppose my mother would argue that since I have never needed such weapons, I will never need them. Still, I accept the fact that they are all good ideas. I view the concept of banning these weapons just as I would view the concept of banning seat belts or fire extinguishers. All are intended to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies, and it would be morally wrong -- not to mention stupid -- to eliminate them.
Some will argue, "Wait! Each year, innocent people are harmed by people using guns!" I would reply that each year, innocent people are harmed by people using cars -- and cars are NOT necessary to preserve all of our freedoms, including the freedom to drive cars. Most dangerous things are NOT necessary to preserve our freedom. Guns ARE necessary to preserve our freedom, should the worst case arise.
Personally, I am willing to accept the possibility of stupid, needless, tragic deaths, in order that our civilized, free society might survive.
Ultimately, this is the debate, and the problem for which I see no solution. Some of us believe that firearms are a crucial safety device, perhaps the very foundations of our rights, liberties, and our way of life -- whereas others simply scoff at this view, arguing that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" are "used only to kill people, and are therefore unnecessary in modern, civilized, society." Scoffing at and dismissing the views of those who disagree with you is never a fruitful way to begin a discussion, yet it is the normal, typical way for President Obama to do business. President Obama wants us to "stand up to the gun lobby". President Obama refuses to acknowledge that millions of Americans -- Americans who have nothing to do with the National Rifle Association, and who have no financial interest in firearms -- are simply concerned with upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, a Constitution that has nothing to do with "hunting", and everything to do with protecting individual liberty and the rights of the minority.
Perhaps the time has come that we can no longer afford to be concerned with individual liberty, when we must let the government assume control over our choices and our lives, in the interest of saving "even one life". If that is what President Obama believes, then he should SAY what he believes -- that is, that he wishes to do away with the Second Amendment and assume additional power. Then, and only then, can we at least begin an honest discussion.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Grandma's Wreaths
As I was growing up, my elderly Czech grandmother -- who had come to America alone, when she was in her teens -- did almost no Christmas decorating. She lived in another city, in the house where she had lived for decades -- now alone, after the death of her husband (my grandfather), and with her children grown and/or dead. I do not recall whether she had a Christmas tree -- I suspect she might have had a small, artificial one. The only decoration that I remember was two small artificial wreaths -- I believe they were made out of a red tinsley material, and perhaps four or five inches in diameter -- that she hung from the "pulls" on the shades on her two front windows. Those are the only decorations I remember, but she hung them every year.
Back at my house, we had outdoor lights, lights in the windows, at least one large Christmas tree (sometimes more), and greenery and bows and candles and all sorts of decorations. I was always struck by those two little wreaths in my grandmother's windows. They seemed so profound, and so ... HOPEFUL. Most of her life was over. Her loved ones were mostly gone or far away. Yet she did not let the season pass by un-noticed. There were those two little wreaths, year after year. Other houses had massive displays. Why bother with those two little fake wreaths? But there they were. I wish I could write or say something as profound as my grandmother said with those two little wreaths.
Merry Christmas to one and all!
Back at my house, we had outdoor lights, lights in the windows, at least one large Christmas tree (sometimes more), and greenery and bows and candles and all sorts of decorations. I was always struck by those two little wreaths in my grandmother's windows. They seemed so profound, and so ... HOPEFUL. Most of her life was over. Her loved ones were mostly gone or far away. Yet she did not let the season pass by un-noticed. There were those two little wreaths, year after year. Other houses had massive displays. Why bother with those two little fake wreaths? But there they were. I wish I could write or say something as profound as my grandmother said with those two little wreaths.
Merry Christmas to one and all!
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
2012
I do not know how to quantify "knowledge". That is, I do not know any objective way to say whether I know "more" than you do, or how much knowledge is available in a given library, or whether there is more knowledge on earth today than there was yesterday.
Since knowledge includes history, and an infinite number of things have happened between yesterday and today, and all of them can be "known", I suppose there is more that can be known today than yesterday. Plus, each day offers new scientific discoveries and technical breakthroughs. At the same time, knowledge is continually lost. Every time a person dies, the human race loses billions of historical details known only to that person -- details of the person's life and times. In addition, more basic everyday knowledge is continually lost. Most people of today have little grasp of the everyday knowledge that was needed, for example, to survive in an undeveloped wilderness.
Modern humans, living in "the information age", are in many ways an arrogant people. We do not like to admit that knowledge is continually being lost, but there is no doubt that our parents and grandparents knew things that we ourselves will never know, if only about the details of their daily lives.
We are losing more than just the details of personal histories. We cannot duplicate the construction of hundreds of archeaological sites, except perhaps with modern, high tech equipment that we currently believe was unavailable to earlier generations. We can only speculate about the construction methods used for the pyramids, or Stonehenge -- or the purposes of various devices now found in museums. Yet we persist in believing that we know "more" than earlier generations.
Some people claim that more than one earlier civilization believed that 2012 would be a time of cosmic significance. At one extreme are those who believe that the Mayans -- among others -- believed that the world would end on December 21, 2012. At another extreme are those who claim this is nothing but a modern fabrication -- that neither the Mayans nor the Hopis or any other earlier people believed anything specific about 2012. Another view falls somewhere in between. There are those who believe that this WAS predicted to be a special time, but not specifically the end of the world -- perhaps a time of great change, or even of rebirth. Finally, there are those who believe it simply does not matter what earlier peoples believed about 2012, and that it will turn out to be a year like any other year.
Personally, I lack the expertise to evaluate whether or not any earlier cultures believed that something special would happen near the end of 2012. I DO have the expertise to realize that our current science does NOT know or understand everything, and that it is possible that earlier peoples DID know something about the future that our current scientists do NOT know. It is strictly arrogance to believe otherwise.
Within reason, there is value in living as though this might be the last few days, weeks, or months, of the last year. For some people, it WILL be their last few days. Several people close to me have died in recent years, and another could go at any time.
When I say, "Within reason", I mean that it is probably not a good idea to quit your job, or to spend all of your money, or to cancel all your magazine subscriptions, or to quit brushing your teeth. There is a good chance that you will live to see 2013, and probably have to make it on through to 2014 and beyond.
Still, it is probably a good thing to try and make these next few days the best days of your life. It is probably ALWAYS a good thing to try and make the next few days the best days of your life, just as it is probably always a good thing to be at least a little prepared for the unexpected.
I suppose that, in some ways, I am hoping for something extraordinary to happen on December 21, 2012, though I suspect that it will not. I am also hoping to have the best year ever. I am always hoping to have the best year ever.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. There is another, more complicated, possibility. Something may quietly happen on December 21, 2012, that will ultimately dramatically change the world -- but we may not be AWARE of it at that time. Though change can be frightening, and is not in and of itself a good thing, there are things about the world, and about my life, that NEED changing. Good luck, world!
Since knowledge includes history, and an infinite number of things have happened between yesterday and today, and all of them can be "known", I suppose there is more that can be known today than yesterday. Plus, each day offers new scientific discoveries and technical breakthroughs. At the same time, knowledge is continually lost. Every time a person dies, the human race loses billions of historical details known only to that person -- details of the person's life and times. In addition, more basic everyday knowledge is continually lost. Most people of today have little grasp of the everyday knowledge that was needed, for example, to survive in an undeveloped wilderness.
Modern humans, living in "the information age", are in many ways an arrogant people. We do not like to admit that knowledge is continually being lost, but there is no doubt that our parents and grandparents knew things that we ourselves will never know, if only about the details of their daily lives.
We are losing more than just the details of personal histories. We cannot duplicate the construction of hundreds of archeaological sites, except perhaps with modern, high tech equipment that we currently believe was unavailable to earlier generations. We can only speculate about the construction methods used for the pyramids, or Stonehenge -- or the purposes of various devices now found in museums. Yet we persist in believing that we know "more" than earlier generations.
Some people claim that more than one earlier civilization believed that 2012 would be a time of cosmic significance. At one extreme are those who believe that the Mayans -- among others -- believed that the world would end on December 21, 2012. At another extreme are those who claim this is nothing but a modern fabrication -- that neither the Mayans nor the Hopis or any other earlier people believed anything specific about 2012. Another view falls somewhere in between. There are those who believe that this WAS predicted to be a special time, but not specifically the end of the world -- perhaps a time of great change, or even of rebirth. Finally, there are those who believe it simply does not matter what earlier peoples believed about 2012, and that it will turn out to be a year like any other year.
Personally, I lack the expertise to evaluate whether or not any earlier cultures believed that something special would happen near the end of 2012. I DO have the expertise to realize that our current science does NOT know or understand everything, and that it is possible that earlier peoples DID know something about the future that our current scientists do NOT know. It is strictly arrogance to believe otherwise.
Within reason, there is value in living as though this might be the last few days, weeks, or months, of the last year. For some people, it WILL be their last few days. Several people close to me have died in recent years, and another could go at any time.
When I say, "Within reason", I mean that it is probably not a good idea to quit your job, or to spend all of your money, or to cancel all your magazine subscriptions, or to quit brushing your teeth. There is a good chance that you will live to see 2013, and probably have to make it on through to 2014 and beyond.
Still, it is probably a good thing to try and make these next few days the best days of your life. It is probably ALWAYS a good thing to try and make the next few days the best days of your life, just as it is probably always a good thing to be at least a little prepared for the unexpected.
I suppose that, in some ways, I am hoping for something extraordinary to happen on December 21, 2012, though I suspect that it will not. I am also hoping to have the best year ever. I am always hoping to have the best year ever.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. There is another, more complicated, possibility. Something may quietly happen on December 21, 2012, that will ultimately dramatically change the world -- but we may not be AWARE of it at that time. Though change can be frightening, and is not in and of itself a good thing, there are things about the world, and about my life, that NEED changing. Good luck, world!
Thursday, November 15, 2012
2012 Election Wrap-up
A friend of mine sought legal action to end her marriage. As I recall, she had been married for a year or two, after a whirlwind courtship. The way my friend explained it to me, the judge eventually annulled her marriage, rather than granting a divorce. The judge's reasoning was that since the groom had badly misrepresented himself to my friend, she had never actually married HIM -- she had married some non-existent fictional character created by him, and therefore had never been married at all.
In a way, this illustrates my problem with the 2012 American Presidential Election, except that the non-existent, fictional character was created by President Obama and his campaign, and substituted for the real-life Mitt Romney. The voters who voted for President Obama were not choosing between the real Barack Obama and the real Mitt Romney -- they were choosing between Barack Obama and a character that Obama and his campaign had created. I believe that IF the voters had been presented with the choice of the REAL Barack Obama versus the REAL Mitt Romney, Romney would have easily won the election.
In support of my position, I offer up any of the three Presidential debates. During each debate, President Obama spent considerable time stating not HIS beliefs and plans, but the beliefs and plans of Mitt Romney. When Mitt Romney would attempt to intervene, and state his REAL beliefs and plans, President Obama would ignore him, and re-state what he had already said, arguing that only HE was capable of accurately stating the beliefs and plans of ... Mitt Romney. Incidentally, this tactic alone was enough to ensure that I would not vote for Barack Obama -- or anyone else who used this tactic. But, according to exit polls, many voters accepted Barack Obama's description of Mitt Romney, rather than Mitt Romney's.
Anyone who has followed my logic this far, and not quit reading in disgust, may respond that it was the real Mitt Romney's job to overcome Barack Obama's misrepresentation of him. This can be close to impossible, especially when most of the news media is participating in the deception.
Most of my family and friends supported and voted for President Obama, in both the 2012 and 2008 elections. I repeatedly observed a phenomenon that I have never seen before in politics. In both campaigns, when anyone expressed criticism of Barack Obama, or support for his opponent, the Obama supporters often responded with words to the effect of "I don't want to hear that!" or "I will not talk about that!" They did not defend their candidate or his positions -- they simply refused to engage in discussion, or listen to opposing views. This is a new and puzzling phenomenon, and it does not bode well for the future of political discourse in America. This was something that I observed personally -- perhaps it is not widespread.
My personal opinion of Barack Obama has always been based solely on Barack Obama. When he makes a speech, I listen -- to the entire speech -- and when he takes action, I pay attention. As the 2012 election approached, I noticed that when the people I was in contact with expressed criticism of Mitt Romney, it was almost never based on anything REAL -- not on his real past, or his real positions, or his real plans for America -- but instead on the lies spread by President Obama and his campaign.
I am not saying the recent election was illegal. Even if elections could be annulled, President Obama and his campaign would continue to run against their fictional creation, and they would likely win again. THAT's one of the biggest tragedies: now that the tactic has been successful, it will probably be used over and over in American politics.
Less than twelve years ago, George W. Bush became our forty-third President after an election that was too close to accurately count, and was, in the end, settled by the Supreme Courts of both Florida and the United States. Prior to the election, George W. Bush had proven himself capable of working successfully in a bipartisan manner with his opponents as he served as Governor of Texas. For his entire term as President, his opponents fought him tooth and nail, and then criticized him for his failure to win THEIR support. People maintained his election was "illegal". To this day, there are bumper stickers in my community referring to George W. Bush that proclaim "Not MY President!" And to this day, President Obama and his supporters blame George W. Bush for their current problems.
One of the most exasperating things about politics is double standards. For over twelve years, Democrats have fought, demonized, and ridiculed George W. Bush, and continue to do so. When Barack Obama was elected President, Democrats indignantly insisted that the nation must suddenly "unite" and "respect the Office of the President". Furthermore, they insisted, and continue to insist, that anyone NOT uniting behind President Obama is motivated primarily by racism. In fact, for the last four years I have TRIED to unite behind President Obama, but in every single speech, at every opportunity, he attacks and mocks me and my beliefs (well, not me PERSONALLY -- he has shown no evidence of caring about me personally, or my opinions). For four years, he has been unable to rise out of campaign mode, and shift into a mode of leadership.
It's a tricky and dangerous thing to accuse a politician of "divisiveness". Often, the charge is leveled by those who have spent years opposing the politician, and attempting to persuade others to join in their opposition. In the case of President Obama, he himself has led the opposition, by continuing to battle against the very people he is supposed to represent and lead.
In a perfect world -- the world of my dreams -- after an election, the opposing sides come together, agree that the voters have made their choice, and get down to the business of doing what is best for all. President Obama and his supporters -- NOT Mitt Romney, and NOT those who opposed President Obama -- have made this difficult. It remains to be seen whether they have made it impossible.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. I was looking forward to writing about something OTHER than politics. Maybe next time.
In a way, this illustrates my problem with the 2012 American Presidential Election, except that the non-existent, fictional character was created by President Obama and his campaign, and substituted for the real-life Mitt Romney. The voters who voted for President Obama were not choosing between the real Barack Obama and the real Mitt Romney -- they were choosing between Barack Obama and a character that Obama and his campaign had created. I believe that IF the voters had been presented with the choice of the REAL Barack Obama versus the REAL Mitt Romney, Romney would have easily won the election.
In support of my position, I offer up any of the three Presidential debates. During each debate, President Obama spent considerable time stating not HIS beliefs and plans, but the beliefs and plans of Mitt Romney. When Mitt Romney would attempt to intervene, and state his REAL beliefs and plans, President Obama would ignore him, and re-state what he had already said, arguing that only HE was capable of accurately stating the beliefs and plans of ... Mitt Romney. Incidentally, this tactic alone was enough to ensure that I would not vote for Barack Obama -- or anyone else who used this tactic. But, according to exit polls, many voters accepted Barack Obama's description of Mitt Romney, rather than Mitt Romney's.
Anyone who has followed my logic this far, and not quit reading in disgust, may respond that it was the real Mitt Romney's job to overcome Barack Obama's misrepresentation of him. This can be close to impossible, especially when most of the news media is participating in the deception.
Most of my family and friends supported and voted for President Obama, in both the 2012 and 2008 elections. I repeatedly observed a phenomenon that I have never seen before in politics. In both campaigns, when anyone expressed criticism of Barack Obama, or support for his opponent, the Obama supporters often responded with words to the effect of "I don't want to hear that!" or "I will not talk about that!" They did not defend their candidate or his positions -- they simply refused to engage in discussion, or listen to opposing views. This is a new and puzzling phenomenon, and it does not bode well for the future of political discourse in America. This was something that I observed personally -- perhaps it is not widespread.
My personal opinion of Barack Obama has always been based solely on Barack Obama. When he makes a speech, I listen -- to the entire speech -- and when he takes action, I pay attention. As the 2012 election approached, I noticed that when the people I was in contact with expressed criticism of Mitt Romney, it was almost never based on anything REAL -- not on his real past, or his real positions, or his real plans for America -- but instead on the lies spread by President Obama and his campaign.
I am not saying the recent election was illegal. Even if elections could be annulled, President Obama and his campaign would continue to run against their fictional creation, and they would likely win again. THAT's one of the biggest tragedies: now that the tactic has been successful, it will probably be used over and over in American politics.
Less than twelve years ago, George W. Bush became our forty-third President after an election that was too close to accurately count, and was, in the end, settled by the Supreme Courts of both Florida and the United States. Prior to the election, George W. Bush had proven himself capable of working successfully in a bipartisan manner with his opponents as he served as Governor of Texas. For his entire term as President, his opponents fought him tooth and nail, and then criticized him for his failure to win THEIR support. People maintained his election was "illegal". To this day, there are bumper stickers in my community referring to George W. Bush that proclaim "Not MY President!" And to this day, President Obama and his supporters blame George W. Bush for their current problems.
One of the most exasperating things about politics is double standards. For over twelve years, Democrats have fought, demonized, and ridiculed George W. Bush, and continue to do so. When Barack Obama was elected President, Democrats indignantly insisted that the nation must suddenly "unite" and "respect the Office of the President". Furthermore, they insisted, and continue to insist, that anyone NOT uniting behind President Obama is motivated primarily by racism. In fact, for the last four years I have TRIED to unite behind President Obama, but in every single speech, at every opportunity, he attacks and mocks me and my beliefs (well, not me PERSONALLY -- he has shown no evidence of caring about me personally, or my opinions). For four years, he has been unable to rise out of campaign mode, and shift into a mode of leadership.
It's a tricky and dangerous thing to accuse a politician of "divisiveness". Often, the charge is leveled by those who have spent years opposing the politician, and attempting to persuade others to join in their opposition. In the case of President Obama, he himself has led the opposition, by continuing to battle against the very people he is supposed to represent and lead.
In a perfect world -- the world of my dreams -- after an election, the opposing sides come together, agree that the voters have made their choice, and get down to the business of doing what is best for all. President Obama and his supporters -- NOT Mitt Romney, and NOT those who opposed President Obama -- have made this difficult. It remains to be seen whether they have made it impossible.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. I was looking forward to writing about something OTHER than politics. Maybe next time.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney for President
Each of us has strengths and weaknesses -- areas in which we are skilled, strong, or knowledgeable, and areas in which we are not so skilled, strong, or knowledgeable. If you want a job done well, the key is not to find the best person, but to find the best person for the job. Even more, the best person for that PARTICULAR job under those PARTICULAR circumstances at that particular time.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Big Tent
There is a surprising truth in American politics today -- a truth that few talk about, and that those on both the left and the right wish to deny. The truth is that, over the last few decades, the Republican Party has quietly become the "big tent" party, the party of diversity of viewpoints -- especially when it comes to "social issues".
This truth is denied by both sides. Those on the far right of the Republican Party want the world to believe that the rest of the party agrees with them, and find comfort in telling themselves that they speak for the majority of Republicans. Those on the left want the world to believe that the Republican Party is made up of extremists, while the Democrat Party is more moderate and reasonable.
I am referring mostly to divisive controversial issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control, though the diversity extends to things like war and environmental issues. The extremists would have you believe that all Republicans oppose abortion and same-sex marriage and gun control, favor war as opposed to peace, and give no regard to protecting the environment. Though it is hard to gather honest, accurate statistics about the personal beliefs of millions of Americans, there are large numbers of Republicans on both sides of all of these issues -- while it is much harder to find large groups of Democrats on both sides of these issues.
I hasten to acknowledge that it is currently difficult for a vehemently pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, pro gun control candidate to win the Republican nomination for President. This simply reflects the fact that the extremists exercise inordinate control over both major parties, and probably over all political parties. One of the weaknesses of the American system of government is that a well-organized and/or well-funded minority can easily wield disproportionate power.
To those who would disagree with me, I offer this true example: A few months ago, I attended my "neighborhood caucus". Theoretically, all power within the political party proceeds upward from the caucus level. Among the tasks of the caucus was to elect delegates to the county convention, and also name members of the local "central committee". In both cases, we were unable to fill the available slots. That is, we were supposed to hold an election to narrow down our slate of delegates to eleven, but only nine would agree to serve. We were supposed to elect six people to serve on the "central committee", but only five would agree to serve. This means that any extremists who wished to have THEIR views heard could proceed unopposed to the county convention and central committee -- and technically represent the hundreds or thousands of eligible voters in my "neighborhood". That is truly how the system works. At the most basic, local level, power comes not from "the majority" but from those who desire power. At the present time, most of the members of my local "Republican Central Committee" are probably anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-gun control. This offers NO indication of the beliefs of local Republicans on these issues, despite the fact that extremists on both sides would like to believe that it does.
To a certain extent, this same process may extend to the Democrat Party, which is probably also dominated by those who agree to serve. However, there are specific, organized Republican groups on both sides of these issues. That is, there are specific organizations of Republicans who are pro-choice, and Republicans who are pro-same-sex marriage (though offhand I am unaware of any large Republican "pro-gun control" group). I do not believe there are large, organized "Democrats against abortion" or "Democrats against same-sex-marriage" groups. The Democrat Party has simply become less diverse than the Republican Party, and less tolerant of diversity.
As I stated at the outset, this truth is denied by both sides. I consider this deeply dishonest, and deeply troubling.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Obama and Race
As I type this in 2012, ANY discussion of "race" is dangerous -- especially for someone "white" like me -- and ESPECIALLY any discussion linking the subject of "race" with President Obama. However, it seems likely that ANY discussion of President Obama, now or in the future, will include the subject of "race". President Obama will always be viewed as "America's first black President", and will always be mentioned that way in the history books, no matter what else transpires during his Presidency.
The title of "America's first black President" was destined to be complicated and troubling, regardless of who held it. On the one hand, I had always thought that part of the entire IDEA of having a black President would be to prove that their race did not matter -- but then of course it DOES matter if you are excited about them being "the first black President".
A week or two after President Obama was elected, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio that illustrates the problem. Several people, including pollsters from both the Obama and McCain campaigns, were discussing the election results, and especially focusing on the information gained from "exit polls". They were also taking phone calls from listeners. One of the callers brought up the issue of people who voted based primarily on race. The pollsters agreed that some voters had based their votes primarily on this issue. Then the pollster for the Obama campaign made an interesting statement. He said that everyone feared that people would vote AGAINST Barack Obama due to his race -- and some people DID vote against Barack Obama due to his race -- but their data indicated that even MORE people had voted FOR Barack Obama due to his race, and in fact, he would not have won the election WITHOUT the people who voted for him mostly BECAUSE of his race. So, while they had feared that his race might prevent him from being elected, in fact it had CAUSED him to be elected. His final comment was the most curious of all, as he stated, "And isn't that a wonderful thing!"
As I listened to the discussion on the radio, I was struck that it was NOT necessarily a wonderful thing for someone to be elected BECAUSE of their race. Clearly, most people would have felt that if John McCain had been elected BECAUSE of his (white) race, it would have been a BAD thing. I continue to be troubled by the roll that race played in the election. By the way, I am simply repeating what I heard on National Public Radio. I personally do not have the expertise or data to say what roll race played in Obama's election. Still, I question whether it is truly any better to SUPPORT someone because of their race than it is to OPPOSE them because of their race.
I must confess that from the moment Barack Obama became a candidate for President, I was troubled by the idea that anyone who opposed him, or disagreed with him on ANY issue, risked being branded a "racist". This has turned out to be even more true than I had feared. Even today, almost four years into his Presidency, there are those who insist that the ONLY reason anyone EVER opposes President Obama is due to his race. I suppose this was predictable, but it is still troubling, and it tends to interfere with honest debate over the true issues. Years ago, I heard someone on television -- and I wish I could recall who it was -- who stated, "I disagree with President Obama on almost every issue, and am troubled by all of his positions EXCEPT his race. I do not care about his race one way of the other." I believe many people fall into this camp, yet all are routinely labeled "racist".
For me, labeling all of those who oppose President Obama as "racist" shows disrespect not only for them, but also for President Obama. It is as if he has no ideas, and no positions, and has done nothing as President -- all that matters is his race. If, as I believe, he HAS ideas and positions, and has taken actions as President, then clearly there are going to be people who disagree, just as there are people who agree with him. It sells him short to label all opposition "racist".
I cannot completely ignore the fact that in many ways America NEEDED to have a black President, and the fact that we HAVE a black President is, in many ways, a good thing. At the same time, I consider Barack Obama to have been a bad President, and bad for the country, and bad for the entire world -- but NOT because he is black ... in my opinion, his "blackness" is perhaps the only good thing about his Presidency. (But of course, since I believe Barack Obama has been a bad President, many will simply label me a racist, and ignore my opinions beyond that.)
Barack Obama had a unique opportunity to unite America, and serve as President for ALL Americans. He has squandered that opportunity, choosing* to be one of the most partisan Presidents -- ignoring, demonizing, or ridiculing all with differing ideas, rather than attempting to build consensus, and tossing aside his 2008 campaign promises of a transparent administration ("the most transparent administration in history!"). One of Barack Obama's biggest failings as a President has been his failure to ever rise out of "campaign mode", and represent not only those who voted for him, but the entire country. Instead, he can never resist an opportunity to praise his supporters, and attack his opponents. As America's first black President, this is especially tragic.
Truth is complicated.
*Despite what President Obama or his supporters might claim, dominating rather than uniting IS a choice, and cannot be blamed solely on one's opponents.
The title of "America's first black President" was destined to be complicated and troubling, regardless of who held it. On the one hand, I had always thought that part of the entire IDEA of having a black President would be to prove that their race did not matter -- but then of course it DOES matter if you are excited about them being "the first black President".
A week or two after President Obama was elected, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio that illustrates the problem. Several people, including pollsters from both the Obama and McCain campaigns, were discussing the election results, and especially focusing on the information gained from "exit polls". They were also taking phone calls from listeners. One of the callers brought up the issue of people who voted based primarily on race. The pollsters agreed that some voters had based their votes primarily on this issue. Then the pollster for the Obama campaign made an interesting statement. He said that everyone feared that people would vote AGAINST Barack Obama due to his race -- and some people DID vote against Barack Obama due to his race -- but their data indicated that even MORE people had voted FOR Barack Obama due to his race, and in fact, he would not have won the election WITHOUT the people who voted for him mostly BECAUSE of his race. So, while they had feared that his race might prevent him from being elected, in fact it had CAUSED him to be elected. His final comment was the most curious of all, as he stated, "And isn't that a wonderful thing!"
As I listened to the discussion on the radio, I was struck that it was NOT necessarily a wonderful thing for someone to be elected BECAUSE of their race. Clearly, most people would have felt that if John McCain had been elected BECAUSE of his (white) race, it would have been a BAD thing. I continue to be troubled by the roll that race played in the election. By the way, I am simply repeating what I heard on National Public Radio. I personally do not have the expertise or data to say what roll race played in Obama's election. Still, I question whether it is truly any better to SUPPORT someone because of their race than it is to OPPOSE them because of their race.
I must confess that from the moment Barack Obama became a candidate for President, I was troubled by the idea that anyone who opposed him, or disagreed with him on ANY issue, risked being branded a "racist". This has turned out to be even more true than I had feared. Even today, almost four years into his Presidency, there are those who insist that the ONLY reason anyone EVER opposes President Obama is due to his race. I suppose this was predictable, but it is still troubling, and it tends to interfere with honest debate over the true issues. Years ago, I heard someone on television -- and I wish I could recall who it was -- who stated, "I disagree with President Obama on almost every issue, and am troubled by all of his positions EXCEPT his race. I do not care about his race one way of the other." I believe many people fall into this camp, yet all are routinely labeled "racist".
For me, labeling all of those who oppose President Obama as "racist" shows disrespect not only for them, but also for President Obama. It is as if he has no ideas, and no positions, and has done nothing as President -- all that matters is his race. If, as I believe, he HAS ideas and positions, and has taken actions as President, then clearly there are going to be people who disagree, just as there are people who agree with him. It sells him short to label all opposition "racist".
I cannot completely ignore the fact that in many ways America NEEDED to have a black President, and the fact that we HAVE a black President is, in many ways, a good thing. At the same time, I consider Barack Obama to have been a bad President, and bad for the country, and bad for the entire world -- but NOT because he is black ... in my opinion, his "blackness" is perhaps the only good thing about his Presidency. (But of course, since I believe Barack Obama has been a bad President, many will simply label me a racist, and ignore my opinions beyond that.)
Barack Obama had a unique opportunity to unite America, and serve as President for ALL Americans. He has squandered that opportunity, choosing* to be one of the most partisan Presidents -- ignoring, demonizing, or ridiculing all with differing ideas, rather than attempting to build consensus, and tossing aside his 2008 campaign promises of a transparent administration ("the most transparent administration in history!"). One of Barack Obama's biggest failings as a President has been his failure to ever rise out of "campaign mode", and represent not only those who voted for him, but the entire country. Instead, he can never resist an opportunity to praise his supporters, and attack his opponents. As America's first black President, this is especially tragic.
Truth is complicated.
*Despite what President Obama or his supporters might claim, dominating rather than uniting IS a choice, and cannot be blamed solely on one's opponents.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Magic tricks
Decades ago, while far from home, I found myself seated next to a magician -- a talkative magician. Like most modern-day magicians, he did not claim any actual magical powers. He was an entertainer, a performer who made a living by doing things that APPEARED to be magic -- that appeared to defy a logical explanation. Things like making an object appear to be broken, and then whole again, or making objects seem to vanish and reappear. (As I recall, this particular magician liked to work with doves, making them vanish and then re-materialize.)
While my new friend was reluctant to give away the particular secrets behind HIS tricks, he enthusiastically gave away the secrets behind OTHER magician's tricks. As a general rule, he explained that magic was heavily dependent on distraction and misdirection. The observer must be made to focus on something other than what was important, at least momentarily. If the magician needed to do something important with his left hand, he needed to direct the observer's attention to his right hand. If something crucial was about to happen in the center of the stage, the observer needed to be paying attention to the sides of the stage. The magician explained that, if done well, this was almost impossible for the observer to overcome. When he himself was watching another magician, and KNEW precisely where the important thing was about to happen, his attention was STILL successfully diverted from that spot, at least for the crucial moment it took for the other magician to appear to do something "magical".
This seems to be precisely the method that President Obama's campaign is using in an attempt to win his re-election: Keep the observers' attention focussed on unimportant areas, at least at crucial moments. Rather than honestly discussing the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney, or discussing President Obama's accomplishments and future goals, the Obama campaign has successfully directed attention to things like Mitt Romney's wealth, or his tax returns, or at one point to some unfortunate absurd comments made by a Senatorial candidate -- comments having nothing to do with the Presidential contest.
One of the problems with analyzing a modern Presidential campaign is that so many people are involved. There is no way for an outsider to know what campaign decisions are being made by the candidate, and what decisions are being made by professional campaigners. From my position, I have no idea what Mitt Romney himself wants to do, or what Barack Obama wants to do, with regard to their respective campaigns. I can only observe what is actually being done. SOMEONE has apparently decided that the best way for President Obama to win re-election is to avoid honest discussion of his record, his accomplishments, his future goals, and his differences with Mitt Romney. SOMEONE has decided on a strategy of distraction and misdirection. And, as my magician friend explained, since they are doing it well, it is almost impossible to overcome. Even those wishing to honestly examine the differences between the two candidates find themselves focusing on irrelevancies, like Mitt Romney's tax returns, or the comments of a previously-unknown Senatorial candidate.
Even if I knew nothing about the two candidates, and had no opinions about their positions or qualifications, this strategy would make me suspicious, and would make me tend to favor Mitt Romney. Apparently, the Obama campaign believes that if the voters honestly compare Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, President Obama will be found lacking.
Please note that I am not stating whether I believe President Obama SHOULD be re-elected, or which candidate would make a better American President for the next four years. I am simply observing the direction of President Obama's campaign, which, incidentally, is a direction that I do not like. I would prefer a legitimate, open discussion of the differences between the candidates.
The last few weeks have introduced two new elements to the Presidential campaign -- a series of debates, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012. With regard to the terrorist attacks, the Obama campaign has once again attempted to engage in distraction and misdirection, at some points seeming to blame the attacks themselves on Mitt Romney, and certainly attempting to turn the focus to Romney's response to the attacks, rather than the attacks, or the administration's response to the attacks. With regard to the debates, slight-of-hand is proving to be somewhat more difficult -- though both sides have displayed a tendency to engage in "spin" rather than absolute truth.
Truth is complicated.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Agreeing with Obama
The subject of "honesty" gets a bit complicated. Living among others in polite society, sometimes total honesty is simply rude.
Amazingly, there is even debate about what constitutes "honesty". In my mind, stating an opinion as an established fact is a LIE, even if it turns out that the opinion is correct. The precise wording is crucial in these situations.
For me, honesty is one of the most important qualities in a leader or elected official. It does not matter so much to me whether I AGREE with someone's ideas, as long as they are fundamentally honest.
I disagree with President Obama on many issues, but there is one thing he does, over and over and over, that especially irritates and aggravates me. In his speeches, he regularly makes statements that begin with phrases such as "I think we can all agree that ..." or "Experts are in agreement that ..."
When I hear President Obama say, "I think we call all agree ...", I can be fairly certain that he is about to say something with which I strongly disagree, and with which I am certain many others -- sometimes a majority of Americans -- also strongly disagree. I would not mind if he said, "I believe that ...", but he seems to feel it necessary to erroneously claim that there is widespread AGREEMENT on what he is about to say.
To me, this constitutes a blatant LIE, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, or which side is "correct". Ironically, he rarely uses these phrases UNLESS he is about to say something controversial. He does not say, "I think we can all agree that water is wet," or "Experts are in agreement that two plus two equals four." Instead, he says, "I think we can all agree that income redistribution is a noble goal, " or "Experts are in agreement that my approach is good for the American economy."
I do not know what to make of this. There are at least two separate aspects to consider. First, I am fairly certain that President Obama uses these statements more often than any other recent President -- more often than either President Bush, or President Clinton, or President Reagan, or President Carter. Secondly, I believe he generally uses them to precede ideas that LACK widespread agreement, whereas some people might make such statements with regards to subjects where there truly IS widespread agreement.
I may be wrong on either or both of these points. Perhaps this is all just my perception. However, if I am correct, and President Obama habitually uses such statements to introduce ideas about which we do NOT agree, then he ends up alienating me at precisely those moments when he is attempting to persuade me. Then again, perhaps this is just me. Perhaps the technique is an effective way to persuade other people.
Some might say this is just a question of personal style, rather than substance. Sometimes we just do not like another person's "style". I disagree. In this case, President Obama insists on, and persists in, LYING. For me, dishonesty IS a matter of substance rather than style -- though his routine use of these terms also constitutes an issue of style, and I do not like this style.
Truth is complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)