tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58231144914566677792024-03-05T01:03:27.372-08:00My Considered OpinionOpinions are like ... Well, you know.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-10419592016945586942010-11-04T20:00:00.000-07:002010-11-04T20:00:12.223-07:00Do You Want Your Health Care Run Like the Post Office?Driving home this afternoon I saw a sticker in someone's window that asked if I wanted health care run like the post office. I have seen these before, I think people have been putting them up for a couple of years, but being stuck in traffic gives one time to think, and I began thinking about that question.<br />
<br />
I haven't made a survey of the postal systems of the world, but I've always held the opinion that we have a pretty good one here in the USA. I am sure that there are anecdotes galore of letters taking months or years to reach their destination, mistreatment by postal bureaucrats, and various other tales -- some no doubt verifiable -- of bad experiences caused by the US Postal Service, but my personal experiences have been generally good.<br />
<br />
One of the more frustrating Post Office stories I could tell would be about waiting in line. No one likes to wait in line, and it's infuriating to see only one or two customer windows open when there are dozens of people in the lobby. But if you are patient, you will get your turn, and be waited upon by one of the Postal Service's employees who will handle your transaction with a reasonable level of efficiency and politeness.<br />
<br />
This is from the <a href="http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm">USPS' own site</a>:<br />
<br />
"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>The United States Postal Service delivers more mail to more addresses in a larger geographical area than any other post in the world. We deliver to more than 150 million homes, businesses and Post Office boxes in every state, city, town and borough in this country. Everyone living in the U.S. and its territories has access to postal services and pays the same postage regardless of his or her location."</strong></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong><br />
</strong></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">That, to me, sounds like a pretty good description of how I'd like health care to be delivered. "Every one... in the U.S... has access...and pays the same."</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">And consider, if you will, what kind of fees the USPS charges. For 44 cents, I can send a 3 page letter from coast to coast, in about 3 days. For about $12 I can send a 5 pound box. If it's books, CDs, or DVDs (or film, tape or vinyl records) there's a reduced rate of about $4. I think these rates are a uniform bargain, and I have never complained about the price of a first-class stamp. They probably should charge more. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Oh, and the Post Office uses NO tax revenue. Throw <i>that</i> into Boston Harbor. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;">Another fact from the USPS website: the USPS is the most trusted government agency. It would be a fine goal for the new National Health Service (if we may borrow from the UK) to become at least the second-most trusted.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So, yes. I would like my health care run like the Post Office. I know I'd have to wait in line, and follow the rules, and sometimes it might annoy me, but knowing that everyone in the country finally had the ability to access a reasonable level of care at a uniform price would go a long way toward alleviating that annoyance. Knowing that mentally ill people could get good care instead of winding up in prison or on the street would make me sleep better at night. I'd probably be healthier just knowing that pregnant women and little children would all be able to see a doctor whenever they need to, no matter where in the US they live, no matter how poor they are.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #464a4f;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-42909709780727860382010-07-16T13:59:00.000-07:002010-07-16T13:59:00.812-07:00Patty Murray for Senator. Yeah, Okay. I guess.I will vote for Senator Murray, but I am very disappointed by the Democratic Party. Accusations of "socialism" aside, the Democrats have still not learned what their opponent's great strength is, nor do they seem to have a grasp of what their own role in national politics is, or should be. <br />
<br />
The GOP stands more or less united for their (mostly reprehensible and disingenuous) principles. They present a strong front that many Americans (heaven help us) perceive as great leadership. They define problems, no matter how absurd, and present solutions, no matter how ridiculous. You're unemployed because of illegal aliens! Solution: check everyone's citizenship and build a wall.<br />
<br />
It is important <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">for many reasons</a> that the GOP not resume legislative power. They have done enough damage since 1980 or so. <br />
<br />
The Democratic Party should stand for the working man, the oppressed, the minority. It should be proud to advocate for a strong social support network, including health care, child care, unemployment, and education. It should stand for building a nation that the rest of the world can look up to, and turn to in times of need. It should not be afraid of meaningless names called by ignorant hecklers.<br />
<br />
The Democratic Party must loudly remind Americans that the economic meltdown of 2007-8 is the legacy of Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Cheney. They must take a stand to end the Bush-instigated lie-based wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They must strongly advocate a return to the civil liberties we enjoyed in this nation before we allowed a handful of terrorists to scare us into giving them up. And they must be the truly inclusive party, the one that welcomes people of all races and spiritual persuasions, all nationalities, all types of personal orientation, with liberty and justice for all.<br />
<br />
It will take courage and conviction to stand for and behind these principles, but if led with fearless and strong conviction, America can and will prove once again that it is capable of being a great nation, perhaps even the greatest nation on Earth.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-139031114122322222009-03-10T10:29:00.000-07:002009-03-10T15:32:29.709-07:00How Much Are Your Thirty Dollar Auto License Tabs This Year?I have been a resident of the Great State of Washington (GSoW) for about 33 years. During that time I have reached the conclusion that if there is anything that the GSoW has gotten really screwed up, it is the intake of money for the purposes of operating said State.<br /><br />The GSoW has no <span style="font-style: italic;">income tax,</span> a thing which, once a year around 15 April, bringeth a smile to the face of many a taxpayer. The lack of this instrument -- <a href="http://www.govspot.com/know/incometax.htm">enjoyed by most states in the Union</a> -- causes a great crimp in the giant culvert through which flows the legal tender required to maintain the public servants of the GSoW in the manner to which they have become accustomed. This deplorable impedance has forced those resourceful servants to grow an enormous blackberry bush of fees, fines, and taxes a single thorn from which exacts no more than a scratch, but whose total influence may draw enough blood to induce anemia in the hardiest of victims.<br /><br />One of those thorns is the annual fee that motorists pay to renew their vehicle registration. When I first lived here, that fee was mostly excise tax, based on a table of theoretical value for the vehicle in question, and it was onerous indeed. It was not uncommon to pay several hundred dollars a year if one owned a newer, more valuable car or truck. Over time, I became used to this annual contribution, and would save up for it throughout the year.<br /><br />In 1999, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Eyman">Tim Eyman</a> successfully sponsored<a href="http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=1999"> Initiative 695</a>, which reduced the automobile license fee to $30/year. In a paroxysm of governmental angst, the State Supreme Court ruled that Initiative unconstitutional. The legislature and governor, however, sensed that a lynch mob was gathering, and quickly passed a law that was <span style="font-style: italic;">almost</span> the same as I-695. I don't really remember, but it seems that the car license fees I paid that year were pretty close to $30. Ah, the good old days.<br /><br />Every successive year that figure has crept up, and up. I know that this is predictable, and I am not surprised, but it is remarkable how each year creative fees, surcharges, and related taxes get tacked on to the bill. The last payment I made for my $30 car tabs was $57. The GSoW <a href="http://www.dol.wa.gov/vehicleregistration/renewalfees.html">provides this page</a> to see all the interesting ways that this is possible.<br /><br />Yesterday I received the bill for my other vehicle, which renews in April. These $30 car tabs come to about $65. Wow, sez I. Why so much? Oh. I see. Not only am I paying for my license, but I am buying new plates. The perfectly good license plates that I have are due for replacement. I will be charged $20 to keep the same plate number, my ham radio callsign. And (this is good) there's a "reflectorizing fee" of $4.<br /><br />Sigh. How brief a victory. Timmy, we hardly knew ye.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-13073118999865780602008-06-09T13:28:00.000-07:002008-06-09T13:29:32.368-07:00American Scarelines<div class="content-body"> <div class="KonaBody"> <p>I have really come to despise flying, the automobile is a source of frustration and despair, rail is far too expensive and slow, and bus travel would combine all of the disadvantages of the other options, as well as additional discomfort, danger, inconvenience, and unpleasantness. I live a continent's width from many of my relatives, and my daughter's home is as near to the Gulf of Mexico as mine is to the North Pacific Ocean. In order to make the visits to which one at times is obligated one is doomed to use the airlines.<br /><br />Air travel is cheap, I suppose, and this is its downfall. When it was not so cheap, it was much, much better. Air travel benefited from regulation, and airline companies benefited from charging fares that reflected the real cost of transporting humans and their possessions from point to point about the globe.<br /><br />Far be it from me to begrudge any youngster a trip to Disneyland (ugh) or those with limited funds the freedom to fly the friendly skies, but I am really sore and tired today from the squeezing and pummeling I received on Northwest Airlines yesterday. I am not remarkably large for an American man, but neither am I small. (5' 11", 220 lbs.) When I sat in the seat on the 757 that was to fly us from Minneapolis to Seattle yesterday, my knees touched the back of the seat in front of me. My left arm overlapped the "arm rest" (interesting term for a thin rail of steel which does nothing to "rest" my arm at all, and much to injure it), my right rested against the inside wall of the cabin. (I was in a window seat, the first one on the four flights I took. Bast be praised.) The outside of my left thigh contacted the outside of my brother's right. The outside of my right thigh was pressed against the cabin wall.<br /><strong><br /></strong>If the person in the seat in front of me had reclined the back of his seat, we would have had words. I had not quite enough room to hold a copy of <em>Harper's</em> magazine before me. To reach the $2 bottle of water in my briefcase (you can't bring your own, it's a security measure) required contortions that would elicit applause in a carnival freak show.<br /><br />Since the marketing departments of many airlines have decided to charge extra to check luggage as a way to keep the apparent price of a ticket down in the face of rising kerosene prices, folks are carrying bigger and heavier things into the passenger cabin. This makes loading the cabin a nightmare, bringing the general mood to a simmering level of dislike bordering on hatred, and causing a number of very unsafe conditions. As time goes by and people become even more aware of this situation, it will become a bottleneck in the trip second only to those idiotic runway delays that we always seem to endure. (Why don't they plan the departure times of airplanes so that they don't get stacked up waiting to take off?)<br /><br />I don't care if the airline serves me food or provides a B or C movie (with a G rating) for me to watch. They may charge what they need to to pay for their fuel and check my baggage in the hold. They may restrict the size and weight of what I carry into the cabin, as long as I can bring a book, a sweater, and a small bag of food.<br /><br />I will pay the price when I need to fly. What I want is very simple: I want enough room for my fat ass, my long legs, and my very ordinary arms and hands. I would like the cabin to be heated or cooled to a temperature in the vicinity of sixty-eight degrees Fahrenheit. (Last night it was close to 80° F.) I would like to be able to recline the seat back and sleep without injuring or infuriating the person behind me.<br /><br />I do not want to be forced into intimacy with my fellow passengers. I do not want to touch them involuntarily. If I need to rise to go to the restroom, provide enough leg and head room so that I can do this without injuring myself, or others, or forcing everyone in the row to leave their seat.<br /><br />Why is this not available?<br /><br />Are the geniuses that operate airlines so busy dealing with bankruptcy (don't try to win business by cutting prices) and labor relations nightmares (take care of your employees and they'll take care of you) that they can't see that an airline that would provide the service I've described above -- <em>really</em> provide it, not just say they do -- and then advertise it, would probably <em>kick ass</em> in the marketplace? It would certainly <em>kick ass</em> with me.</p> <p><em>"Fly JingoJumbo, the airline for full-sized American people! Bring your lunch and your own entertainment, but be ready to have a really comfortable, pleasant time. When we say 'sit back and enjoy the flight,' you will be able to do just that. Round trips from Seattle to New York starting at $899."<br /></em></p> <p><br />Sign me up.</p> </div> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-37422195250184055392008-06-06T22:54:00.000-07:002008-06-06T23:01:30.625-07:00The ChasmI could say that I am an Episcopalian, but in most conversations I would not. The last time I went to church it was for my father's funeral, and before that I really can't remember. Notwithstanding, I was baptized (or so they tell me) when an infant, and confirmed as a very young fellow (age 12, I think), into the Episcopal Church. <br /><br />Growing up with my parents, I was taken to church nearly every Sunday. I seem to remember that our attendance intensified as I grew older. When I left home, I left that habit there. <br /><br />Belonging to, and attending a church, does not attract me, but religion as a human phenomenon is interesting. The desire to place a structure over reality; to explain the unexplainable; to summon forces greater than our own to protect, defend, and guide us -- these desires are ingrained in some subconscious level of the majority of human minds, if not all. The rituals of religious celebration or worship that I found stultifying and intolerably boring as a youth sometimes don't seem so bad to me when I remember them today. Of course, should I actually go and participate in a service of Morning Prayer or Holy Communion, I might have a different attitude. Nevertheless, the words of the services do come back to me at times, and the tunes of the hymns, anthems, and chants that we sang are permanently recorded in my mind. <br /><br />The first priest that I remember was Father Moss, a Scotsman who had probably lived in the United States of America for a long time, because his speech was quite Americanized. Later in life when I have listened to, and attempted conversation with the citizens of Scotland, I have had to make a much more concerted effort to understand them, and to make myself understood, than was ever necessary with Father Moss. But his voice and his pronunciation were glorious, partly due to his innate gifts, and partly to the traces of Highland mists, rainbows, and bagpipes that clung to his syllables and influenced his choice of words. <div id="v4_i0" style="margin-left: 40px;"><i id="j2-g0"><br />"</i><i id="v4_i1">May their souls, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace, and may light perpetual shine upon them."</i> </div><br />When I read those words, I hear the voice of Father Moss. There was a lot of beauty in our priest's speech, and in the liturgical music, and there was a lot of decent English poetry in the Book of Common Prayer. (It is worth noting that my church attendance as a child was well before 1979, the year when the Book was revised, and much more modern English was included. This no doubt was intended to make the service more understandable -- "accessible" would be the term today -- to the average reader, but to my ears trained to the King James words and meter, it sounds flat and fake.) One of the most memorable passages (and this may say more about me than is desirable) is the General Confession from the Order for Morning Prayer: <div id="k1mw0" style="margin-left: 40px;"><i id="k1mw1"><b id="atwc2"><br />"ALMIGHTY</b> and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us..." </i></div><br />I love the cadence, and the tone of "We have left undone ..." etc. I've never forgotten it. It's so true. "...there is no health in us..." <br /><br />I really am not religious. I don't believe what one must, or should, believe: "All things visible and invisible, " in order to qualify. I regard the art, poetry, and music that I was exposed to as a child in church as just that: art, poetry, and music. I can admire the <a title="Tjängvide Image Stone" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Tj%C3%A4ngvide.jpg" id="bskn">Tjängvide Image Stone</a> without believing in Odin. Myths are a beautiful and integral part of our culture and psychology, and the lack of subscription to belief need not inhibit one's appreciation of their beauty, and mystery. <br /><br />The reason I've started thinking and writing about all this is that I picked up a copy of the May 2008 <i id="wkpi0">Harper's </i>magazine in the airport Wednesday, and read (among other excellent things) an article entitled "Turning Away From Jesus, Gay Rights and the War for the Episcopal Church," by Garret Keizer. (Page 39) I'll not attempt to restate all of Mr. Keizer's work here. He did a very thorough job of exploring what's been going on since the ordinati<span id="d2mf0" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">on of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, "the first openly (and without the word <i id="fe4l0">openly</i> you must lose the word <i id="fe4l1">first</i>) gay and domestically partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion..."</span> Much has been written and said about this, and about many other parts of society to which, of late, gay people have been trying to gain acceptance. It is not my purpose to explore these phenomena. [p39] <br /><br />In the second paragraph, Keizer got my attention with this: <div id="p5tl0" style="margin-left: 40px;"><i id="q2ey0"><br />"...what might strike you as an irrelevant story about a religious dispute is in some ways your story, whether you are religious or not. The story invites us to ask if what we see happening to the institutions we love is not at least partly the result of our having loved them less attentively than we supposed."</i> [p39] </div><br />And then, what I found particularly interesting about Keizer's article, the last page. After telling many stories about the controversies and arguments in the church all over the world, and about how the power structure of the Anglican church is changing both as a result of and coincidentally with this issue, he takes a new tack. He remarks that his non-religious readers are probably thinking that this is all very interesting, but what of it? Isn't all this church-related brouhaha pretty irrelevant to the "real" world? In the so-called "developed" countries, isn't church attendance at a new low? What do we care about the arguments of a bunch of superstitious men and women ? <div id="b5122" style="margin-left: 40px;"><i id="b5123"><br />"My non-Christian readers are likely to see this disquisition on sacraments as a bit of obscurantist trivia having little to do with them or with the subject of this essay, and if they do, my trap is sprung... The consecrated wafers placed on the tongues ... of the faithful, one per person and all the same size, have a secular equivalent in the basic allotments of health, education, and welfare -- of life, liberty, and the off chance of happiness--that every citizen at the common can expect as his or her due. " [p50] </i></div><br />His trap, indeed. He makes his church a metaphor for our society, and our economic structure, describing a church in a very poor area: <div id="qmvf2" style="margin-left: 40px;"><i id="qmvf3"><br />"...the most isolated places need the ... greatest skills. But the system works so that the priests with the greatest skills go almost always to the places that are well-resourced already ... The deployment system is basically a free-market system... it's part of the same system that distributes the rest</i> <i id="c-300">of our goods and services and that most middle- and upper-class electorates ... are quite happy to leave exactly as it is."[p50] </i></div><br />The chasm deepens and widens. More is distributed to those who have the most. 35 million people in the USA were described as "Food Insecure" by <a target="_blank" title="America's Second Harvest" href="http://www.secondharvest.org/" id="h-1k">America's Second Harvest</a> food bank network's <i id="z93p0">Hunger Almanac 2007.</i> About 47 million had no health insurance in 2006, according to the <a title="US Census Bureau" target="_blank" href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf" id="jnrz">US Census Bureau</a>. <div id="ghqs0" style="margin-left: 40px;"><span id="guwn0" style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;font-size:85%;"><i id="guwn1"> <span id="n7:e0" style="font-family:Verdana;"><br />"If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)" [From </span></i><span id="n7:e0" style="font-family:Verdana;">After Capitalism,<i id="zyiz0"> by David Schweikart, </i></span></span><i id="bp6g0">Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (June 2002)</i><span id="guwn0" style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;font-size:85%;"><span id="n7:e0" style="font-family:Verdana;">, <i id="x93q0">ISBN</i> </span></span>978-0742513006.] </div><br />That was written in 2002. Do you suppose that it has changed in the last six years, and in what way? <br /><br /> (Incidentally, <a title="here is another analysis" href="http://www2.physics.umd.edu/%7Eyakovenk/papers/EPL-69-304-2005.pdf" id="i2b2">here is another analysis</a>, using the mathematics of physics to describe income distribution in the USA from 1983-2001. The authors define a two-class structure, "thermal," (97-99% of the population) and "super-thermal" (1-3%). This paper is not for the mathematically inhibited.) <br /><br />Gene Robinson, according to Keizer, has remarked that he knows that those who oppose him are suffering, experiencing an unwelcome pain and controversy in the part of their lives that they probably thought would be a source of solace and comfort. Robinson "takes inspiration from the example of their faithfulness." In other words, Robinson is capable of loving and respecting those who oppose him. "[He] is showing us how our secular debates might bear the image of divinity." [p50] <div id="qmvf2"> </div><br />Keizer exhorts us to pay attention to the "major sacraments," instead of debating the minor ones. He asks us to take care of women, children, and youth before we argue over gun ownership, politics, religion, or morality; to "<i id="e78l0">feed my sheep."</i> <br /><br />Whether we are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists -- no matter what minor sacraments we celebrate -- we all know that we are going out of this life the same way. While here, in the little time we have, we can fight over unimportant points, or we can do what we can to help each other. We might try harder to emulate "the gentleness of a shepherd than the imperiousness of a shop boss." [p40] <br /><br />However we may feel about someone else's behavior or style of life, and no matter what we may believe or not believe, when we dismiss the needs of another (whether spiritual, nutritional, or otherwise) because of his or her <i id="e8cd0">difference</i> from us, we fail as human beings. Whether we are religious, moral, or simply trying to be good, it seems to me that we are called upon to recognize how we are the <i id="b8:l0">same</i>. Garret Keizer has done an excellent job of framing this argument in conclusion to his very thoughtful article. <br /><br />©Eric F. Lester 2008 <div id="rl4c2" style="margin-left: 40px;"> </div><div id="rl4c2">Posted at http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/the_chasm 2250 6 June 2008 PDT </div><div id="b5122"> </div><div id="b5122" style="margin-left: 40px;"></div><div id="k1mw0"> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-62006632034551137512008-02-09T18:12:00.000-08:002008-02-09T22:32:34.842-08:00Hillary Clinton, or Someone, is Getting on my Nerves<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIS4NqCADWLf8y5mtueCpsCP9welXZlPiiOJiIbz7IMyOZ7C7HWCOyHUEcaMVmbFTYb5cGRSHnkLk-J9Fczm1OqznJ7yw15U0WG6lcXJUotfzgsgOem4U2QOpaPZfqNPjmB8s34ArHk7yj/s1600-h/Hillyphone.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIS4NqCADWLf8y5mtueCpsCP9welXZlPiiOJiIbz7IMyOZ7C7HWCOyHUEcaMVmbFTYb5cGRSHnkLk-J9Fczm1OqznJ7yw15U0WG6lcXJUotfzgsgOem4U2QOpaPZfqNPjmB8s34ArHk7yj/s320/Hillyphone.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5165169142410932834" border="0" /></a>As I have mentioned before, my political leanings tend to put me in the "Democratic" column on election day. Unless you have been living under a rock or perhaps in denial you will be aware that the race for the Democratic Party nomination for President in 2008 is starting to look very much like a contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.<br /><br />I don't mean to begin a discussion of who is the more desirable candidate, or the differences and similarites between them. We can have that another time. What I want to talk about here is why in hell Clinton or her campaign staff think that it's a good idea to harass the living fuck out of me.<br /><br />Today, Saturday 9 February 2008, is caucus day here in Washington State. The arcane process of selecting candidates is another thing which will be beyond the scope of this article. It is worth mentioning this fact only to possibly explain why my telephone started ringing frequently several days ago. We seldom answer calls from numbers that we don't recognize, or unidentified numbers. It is logical to conclude that anyone with anything of importance with which they must interrupt our peace will certainly leave a message. Junk calls, telemarketers, survey takers, charity beggers, etc., almost never leave messages. They are usually calling with automated equipment that simply disconnects when it doesn't get a live answer. So, more and more, we don't answer the phone. It saves a lot of useless frustration.<br /><br />The calls were coming from area code 703. Google told me this was from Virginia. One of the Google hits for the number I entered was for http://800notes.com, a site where people report unknown, irritating, and annoying phone calls and tactics. Folks on there were talking about getting irritating "robo-calls" from politicians.<br /><br />When the phone rang at 5:30AM we woke up with that confused feeling of what the hell? followed by dread -- no good phone calls come at 5:30AM. It was hard to believe that it was going to be another area code 703 call, but it was. The usual profile: when it went to voicemail, they left no message. That is rude. No matter from where they are calling, they have to know the time zone that we're in. This was really starting to feel like harassment.<br /><br />Later in the day when one of the calls came in, I was standing near the phone and I grabbed it. I pushed the "talk" button on the handset, and didn't say anything. This is, in my view, a perfectly reasonable way to answer your phone even if you're not trying to fool a robot. A legitimate caller, hearing the end of the ring tone and nothing else, will certainly say something. This gives you, the victim of an uninvited interruption to your time, peace, and quiet, an advantage. You may recognize the voice as friendly, or not. It is your option to speak, or not. In the event that the call is from an auto-dialer, you will have confused the machine a little -- only a little, these refined torture devices have been in use a long time. Usually they will simply disconnect after a few minutes. And that's what happened when I allowed that call into my phone. There was silence, with no background noise, simply dead air, and then a fast "busy" signal.<br /><br />The next time I tried this tactic, about two hours later, for whatever reason (maybe I made some inadvertent noise, or a background noise in the house triggered a response) the auto-dialer must have thought it had made a hit, because a recorded voice, speaking extremely fast, began to tell me about Hillary Clinton. This was followed by another voice, which claimed to be that of Hillary Clinton, encouraging me to help her become president, etc. etc.<br /><br />Even later in the day I discovered a message on our voicemail, very much like the one delivered to my ear before. The same number, Hillary Clinton promo, and an incredibly fast disclaimer at the end that seemed to include a call-back number (I made out "703," but that's all.)<br /><br />What exactly is going on? Does Clinton think this will get her more support? Does she (or her staff) believe that Americans will be positively affected by this tactic, rather than greatly annoyed -- which is what I am? Or -- here comes the conspiracy theory -- are these calls being made by Clinton and/or her staff at all?<br /><br />Suppose that someone who dislikes Clinton and does not want her election bid to succeed is causing this to happen. It seems likely, in a way. But is it effective? I'm perplexed <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> annoyed now.<br /><br />Apparently, in other parts of the country, this has been happening -- but the calls are accredited to Barack Obama. <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/clinton_campaig_3.html">Clinton's campaign has actually accused Obama of breaking State laws</a> by making automated calls.<br /><br /><a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXO4DyOc69-D_n4zjcgiBAYSvEfAD8ULBNMG0">Some states have passed laws against auto-dialing</a>, but this is being challenged as a violation of the First Amendment.<br /><br />I like the First Amendment, and the whole Bill of Rights. I've talked about it before. But making my phone ring at 5:30 in the morning while I'm still in dreamland, thereby taking my heart rate up to 260 and focusing my brain on every possible disaster I can think of is a lot more like assault with a deadly weapon than free speech.<br /><br />I have never talked to anyone who likes telephone solicitation of any type, yet it continues to be used to sell things, collect public opinion, fund charities, and promote political objectives. It is very cheap, and apparently reasonably effective.<br /><br />Google has an interesting new service called <a href="http://www.grandcentral.com/">Grand Central</a>. I have experimented with it a little bit. It allows me to have a little more control over my incoming telephone calls, and allows them to be routed to different places. I think I'll be looking a little closer at that, but it's too bad that my main personal impression of the first serious female candidate for President of the USA is that she's added to the general garbage-truck load of marketing crap that I have to wade through every day. Thanks.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-51714440392621957852008-01-08T10:51:00.000-08:002008-01-08T23:05:12.742-08:00Sobriety Checkpoints Advocated by Washington's Governor<h4 class="headline-detail-full"><span style="font-size:130%;">MADD says Evergreen State doesn't do enough against drunk driving.</span><br /></h4><p>It's hard to find an argument in favor of drunken driving. Even people who do it probably know it's a very bad idea. All you have to do is bring this topic up in conversation with a group of people and the horrible tales of death and injury will be told.<br /></p> <p>It is, therefore, difficult to enter into a discussion of drunken driving without encountering intense emotion. When loved ones have been killed or injured by an alcohol addict at the wheel of an automobile, rational thought goes out the window. Revenge becomes the focus of the victim's family and friends, and this angry desire to lash out at the perpetrators drives a powerful political force. <a href="http://www.madd.org/" _fcksavedurl="http://www.madd.org/">Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD), </a> is arguably the most visible and well-organized manifestation of that force.</p> <p>MADD was formed in 1980, and <a href="http://www.madd.org/About-us/About-us/Mission-Statement.aspx" _fcksavedurl="http://www.madd.org/About-us/About-us/Mission-Statement.aspx">states that their mission is</a> to "eliminate... drunk driving and... underage drinking," and "to serve drunk driving victims and survivors."</p> <p>This organization has an effective strategy of putting government officials on the spot and demonstrated that with a November report that ranked the State of Washington as "40th in the nation in its efforts to eliminate drunken driving." [<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112425_webcheckpoints07m.html" _fcksavedurl="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112425_webcheckpoints07m.html">Seattle Times 7 Jan '08</a>.]</p> <p>Politicians do not enjoy the role of pariah, and Governor Christine Gregoire issued a statement calling for "legislation to authorize police to set up sobriety spot checks." The City of Seattle tried this tactic in the early 1980s but the State Supreme Court forced an end to the program, saying that it violated the State Constitution. Legislation could possibly overcome the constitutional prohibition, according to Washington State Justice James Dolliver. [ibid.]</p><p>It is a cold-hearted person indeed who is not moved by a story such as the "deaths of Ashley Ann North, 20, of Pleasant Grove, and Stephan Sean Peery, 20, of Provo, [Utah] on July 14[2007]." The drunken driver, Benjamin Louis Shaw, was convicted of "two second-degree felony counts of automobile homicide" in this case. A third victim was seriously injured in the crash. [<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7888993" _fcksavedurl="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7888993">Salt Lake Tribune 5 Jan. '08</a>]</p> <p>We are horrified, personally and as citizens, when this happens, and it happens very often: I found the <i>Salt Lake Tribune</i> article in less than a minute by searching <a href="http://news.google.com">Google News</a> for "drunk driving tragedy." I had plenty of awful stories to choose from. The frequency of occurrence, and feelings of frustration and anger at the persistence of the problem make it nearly impossible to be objective. It is at this very point that we freedom-loving citizens of the USA become suggestible: perhaps we could trade away one of our rights to stop this abhorrent crime? If only we empowered our police officers to make random sobriety checks, certainly we would catch many of these sociopaths before they can do their damage?</p> <p>In the shadow of the ruins of the World Trade Center, and in the smoke of the burning Pentagon, cries for prevention and revenge were heard. And so were born the <a href="http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1184">USA PATRIOT</a> act, and the <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2006/10/challenging-military-commissions-act.php">Military Commissions Act of 2006</a>. These pieces of federal legislation removed previously sacred rights in the name of fighting terrorism. I leave it to the reader to judge how effective that fight has been; the rights are gone, nonetheless -- leaving me for one with a feeling of buyer's remorse. What have we traded away for this mess of pottage?</p> <p>Are we then, at the State level, to repeat this same action? Should we allow our police officers to randomly stop automobiles and check the sobriety of their drivers, without probable cause? Why not? After all, driving is a privilege, not a right. One must have a license to drive, and agrees to various conditions upon applying for and receiving that license. Being subject to such checkpoints could be simply made a condition of being granted a Washington State Driver's License.<br /></p> <p>On the other hand, driving an automobile is a <i>de facto</i> requirement for being a fully franchised citizen. Unless one lives in one of the metropoli with adequate public transportation (and Washington has none of these) he or she will simply not be able to move about in a manner consistent with normal life unless in possession of a driver's license and automobile. In pursuit of life (liberty, and happiness) is it right to require a citizen to give up his or her Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search? And further, <a href="http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15897pub20040519.html#attach">could not such checkpoints be abused</a>?</p><p>It is important to remove the emotion from this issue and look at the issues as calmly as possible. Drunk driving is not safe, it is a danger to society, it is a crime: this is all fairly established fact. Laws are on the books that make it a serious crime in every state to operate a vehicle while under the influence. Why, then, does this problem continue? Is it because drunken drivers have rights that protect them from being caught breaking the law, and is it a good trade to give up Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for ostensible protection from such lawbreakers? Or is it because most people who choose to drive an automobile when drunk are simply in the grip of an insane addiction over which they are powerless. Perhaps we need to look harder at this problem in our society, the problem of substance abuse and addiction -- but this is a topic beyond our scope here.<br /></p><p>While I am no less offended by senseless death and injury caused by helpless addicts or sociopaths, I am very concerned about a trend in the USA: More and more we are coming to the conclusion that we as a people have too many civil liberties. These liberties get in the way of effective law enforcement, and we believe that we need effective law enforcement more than ever. Our leaders cite the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html">threat of terrorism</a>, the war on drugs, and now the scourge of drunk driving, as reasons that we should willingly surrender <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Amendments">the protections won for us in 1789</a>.</p><p>There is a lot of press given to <a href="http://www.nra.org/">those who cry</a> for the upholding of the Second Amendment, which many interpret as protecting the citizen's right to own firearms. Let us not forget: there are nine more amendments included in this historic document, and the liberties encoded therein constitute nothing less than the basis of our <a href="http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html">freedom from persecution by <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span> government</a>.</p><p>The founders of this nation were not given to complacency. They understood that government is a necessary evil, a dangerous center of power needed for defense and the regulation and/or provision of various services, but prone to self-importance and self-indulgence. They knew that they were setting up a system that would provide for the peaceful transfer of power from one government to another at regular intervals, and that there was no guarantee that such new governments would always be benevolent. For this reason they hammered out, over many years, the system under which we have prospered and thrived as a free people.</p><p> "Thirty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia, allow spot checks to catch drunk drivers, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)." Eighty percent of the United States feel that it should be legal, without probable cause, for police to stop an innocent citizen traveling legally in her automobile to determine if the driver is drunk. Washington State is somewhat unusual where this issue is concerned. Our State Supreme Court determined that this practice would violate the State Constitution. "The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 upheld a Michigan checkpoint program, saying motorists' privacy rights were not violated." [<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112425_webcheckpoints07m.html" _fcksavedurl="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112425_webcheckpoints07m.html">Seattle Times 7 Jan '08</a>.]</p><p>What is the right thing to do?</p><p>Shall we abridge our personal privacy and our right to travel freely in order to facilitate the arrest and prosecution of drunken drivers?</p><p>Or shall we rely on our present laws and constitution and expect law enforcement to observe drivers without interfering, stopping those that show erratic or unusually aggressive behavior: probable cause.</p><p>If you are a victim of drunken driving, or closely related to a victim -- if you have been directly affected -- you will likely be of the opinion that no measure is too drastic. I sympathize completely with your feelings. When you have lost a loved one or seen someone close to you injured needlessly it is quite normal to be angry and want to lash out at something or someone.</p><p>Suppose that a law is passed completely forbidding the use of cellular phones in automobiles. University of Utah researchers have determined that drivers using cellular phones, even hands-free, are every bit as dangerous as drivers who have been drinking. [<a href="http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1">University of Utah News Center</a>] If we believe this, and we are as determined to prevent this problem -- and why wouldn't we be -- what measures will we take to catch drivers who talk on cellular phones?</p><p>Perhaps you will say that this is foolish, that there is no comparison, but suppose the claims that the UU psychologists made are upheld. Suppose that the use of cellular phones becomes recognized as the cause of thousands of traffic fatalities, and is made illegal. What are we to do to enforce this law? Shall we allow the government to monitor the cellular frequencies and identify cars with phone usage? Shall we trust that they will not <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10262007/profile2.html">abuse this permission and listen in a little more than is strictly necessary</a> for the enforcement of the new law?</p><p>SMS or "text" messaging while driving has been specifically forbidden by law in Washington State as of the first of 2008. If there is an outcry to arrest those who break this law, what will we allow our government to do to facilitate that?</p><p>When asked about a loss of privacy in exchange for protection from criminals many people will answer "So what? I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide. Let them monitor my cellular phone, my text messages, and let them stop me to check my sobriety. I'm a law-abiding citizen and I don't mind."</p><p>This is an attractive idea. After all, what is there to fear if one is not breaking the law?</p><p>As far as <span style="font-style: italic;">these laws</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">this government</span>, we seem to have little to fear.</p><p>Remember, our laws and our government are designed to change. We have regular peaceful transfers of power, driven by the forces of politics. While the direction of those forces is one with which we agree, we are content to go along with abridgements of rights, because we wish to see the objectives of the government accomplished. Should the direction shift, will we not regret having given up protections once guaranteed that keep the government from trespassing into certain areas, areas such as privacy in our communications and the freedom to travel unhindered?</p><p>Germans and Austrians in 1939 learned that their legally elected National Socialist government could turn out to be something monstrous. Mussolini established his Fascist party in Italy and by 1926 had abolished free trade unions and the right to strike. [<a href="http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=217165">History.com article</a>] With the perspective of history we wonder how the people of Europe could have been so blind as to allow these power-hungry dictators to take away their freedom.</p><p>Passing one State law is not going to lead us into Fascism and a World War -- but I fear that this is one more ugly step in a direction about which one of our founding fathers warned us:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."<br /><div style="text-align: right;">--<a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin">Benjamin Franklin</a><br /></div></blockquote>Let us not memorialize the loss of our loved ones by weakening our freedom.<br /><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-10468359810818317872007-10-08T15:14:00.000-07:002007-10-08T18:19:05.027-07:00I Still Have My IdentityThere is a trend toward Orwellian language in this world that is more than a little alarming. Specifically I speak of the phenomenon that is called "identity theft." I have -- as you may have guessed -- some opinions about this, but first of all I want to express my rejection of that term.<br /><br />No matter how one may define "identity," I don't think it's something that can be stolen.<br /><br />When this term is used, it is generally used to describe a situation in which a criminal has managed to obtain money or other valuables by means of a subterfuge that features the use of another person's name and other unique information. In a common version of this crime the criminal uses this unique information to convince a commercial concern (e.g. a bank, or a telephone company) that he is someone other than who he really is, and then proceeds to enter into a contract that results in his <span style="font-style: italic;">receiving something of value in exchange for a promise to pay for it in the future.</span><br /><br /><br />Receiving something of value in exchange for a promise to pay for it in the future is known as <span style="font-style: italic;">borrowing</span>. While marketing departments realize that in many cases business will be much brisker if a more palatable term can be substituted, the fact remains that borrowing is the term that best describes this practice.<br /><br />When someone enters into a contract and knowingly gives false information, compounding the misdeed by signing (whether ink or proxy) someone else's name to a promise that all the information given is correct, we call that despicable practice by the very pretty name <span style="font-style: italic;">fraud</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fraud</span>, by dictionary definition, is:<br /><br /><blockquote>"...intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right <b>b</b> <b>:</b> an act of deceiving or misrepresenting ..."<br /><br />(From the <a href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=fraud">Merriam Webster Online Dictionary</a>)<br /></blockquote><br />According to that same source, it may also be used as a noun to describe a person who tricks or deceives, as in "He is a fraud."<br /><br />So what is happening here? Why have we coined this new term for a practice so old that the word comes from Middle English? (<a href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=fraud">ibid</a>.) I believe that the answer to this lies in the idea that the commercial concerns involved in these instances of fraud do not like being the victim. When a bank, for instance, is <span style="font-style: italic;">defrauded</span> to the loss of money, such a loss comes out of the profits of the bank, penalizing its stockholders and raising a desire to prevent such a thing from happening ever again. This motivates the management of the bank to take steps to make it very difficult (if not impossible) for a criminal to defraud them in the future.<br /><br />Let us say that a commercial concern has been defrauded of some money by a criminal who presented himself by means of a telephone call and asked for something of value to be given to him in exchange for a promise to pay for it in the future. The criminal takes care to give someone else's name, and some other unique identifying information, in order to satisfy the objective of convincing the bank that he is indeed who he says he is, assuaging their fear that the contract will not be honored, and at the same time ensuring that he will never be discovered to be the person who implemented the transaction, received the money or valuables, and got off scot-free.<br /><br />Having been the victim of this crime one would think that a logical step to take would be for the company to resolve not to send money or valuables to people on the strength of a telephone conversation. Perhaps it would be wiser to require the individual to appear in person, to prove who he is by means of a picture ID, for example, and to sign his name ink to a paper contract. In the event of default, it would be very difficult for the debtor to deny that he had an agreement with the creditor.<br /><br />We live, however, in an age where instant gratification is not only encouraged, it is considered essential. The great god Marketing demands that consumers be required to make nearly no effort at all to go into debt. One may purchase all manner of goods here on the Internet with a little bit of unique information. Indeed, one may incur a serious obligation with no more action than fingers on a keyboard and mouse. Consumers are coddled and commerce is served.<br /><br />When this convenient borrowing results in the commercial concern becoming the victim of fraud, the incredibly clever turnaround takes place. The evil criminal (EC) has stolen from the XYZ company by masquerading as Mr. Jones. The XYZ company chose to release valuables or money on the strength of EC's representation that he was Mr. Jones, and in that guise promised to pay the debt on terms agreed. Who is the victim? I think that it is obvious that the XYZ company is the victim. But Marketing is invoked and from on High declares that no, Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones is the victim! His identity has been stolen! And he must now take steps to get it back, or he will have no identity, and might even be responsible to repay what EC borrowed.<br /><br />Make no mistake: I abhor the actions of EC in defrauding XYZ and think that he should be charged and tried by law for his crime. XYZ must experience a feeling of foolishness at being so easily fooled, but after all it is blessed to be trusting -- they were only trying to help. But they are, nonetheless, the victim, and if they are not made to suffer this victimization there will be no learning -- they will continue to extend credit without sufficient security. Harsh it is, but less harsh and far more just than to visit upon Mr. Jones the gross injustice of involving him in a <span style="font-style: italic;">crime in which he played no part</span>.<br /><br />Yet that, innocent reader, is exactly what happens much of the time. We Joneses are told "How awful, your identity was stolen. Now you must work to get it back. You must generate reports and affidavits, you must change account numbers, monitor your credit reports (one of these days I must get around to that subject), exercise vigilance in every area of your life. Shred all papers in your home that have any identifying information. Shake with fear at the idea that someone will discover that magical 9-digit number that identifies you to your employer and your Government. Tell no one your Mother's maiden name, or that of your favorite childhood pet. Work to make the world safe for Marketing. Work hard."<br /><br />Yet we have done nothing. We did not take part in a fraudulent transaction. We did not decide that it was all right for the XYZ company to accept EC's flimsy identification of himself as us based on the possession of some not-so-secret information about us.<br /><br />When the lenders, the commercial concerns that extend credit based on a few numbers and names given over the telephone or the Internet (no matter HOW cleverly contrived), are made completely responsible for protecting themselves against fraud the so-called phenomenon of "identity theft" will disappear. When you want to borrow some money or begin cellular telephone service you will not be able to do it without actually presenting some positive identification, most likely in person. "Identities" will no longer be a useful thing to "steal."<br /><br />And, I fear, pigs will fly.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-72658788303415741802007-06-17T11:40:00.000-07:002007-06-17T11:40:48.814-07:00It's Too MuchI suppose we may owe a debt of gratitude to Roy L. Pearson, Jr.<br /><br />In case you've been living under a rock, he is the person <a href="http://cbs11tv.com/consumer/local_story_164103636.html">suing his dry cleaner for $54 million</a>. Living where you do, one could imagine that you are suspicious of your own eyesight, so let me assure you that you just read "fifty-four million dollars." US Dollars, in 2007 dollars. There is no catch here, no punch line.<br /><br />Mr. Pearson may be mentally ill rather than incredibly evil and greedy. He may be all of these things. Whatever his motivation, he may have created enough <a href="http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/ridiculous_lawsuits.html">public distaste and disappointment with the tort system in the United States </a>to actually give the citizens of this country some hope that perhaps it will be changed for the better. On his way to becoming a household word, Roy L. Pearson, Jr. might be doing us all a favor.<br /><br />We do not need more laws, we simply need judges with a sense of smell. (It is worth mentioning that Pearson is himself a type of judge, albeit a rather obscure type known as an <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=what+is+an+administrative+law+judge&gwp=13">Administrative Law Judge</a>.) With olfactory powers engaged, such courageous upholders of the Constitution could say (sniffing a bit), "What the hell are you doing in my courtroom? The taxpayers of this [city, county, state, nation] pay a lot of money to convene this court for the purpose of dispensing justice under our time-honored system of fairness and equality. The cleaners offered to pay for your damn pants. You didn't take the money. Get out of here before I hold you in Contempt." One imagines <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=bizarre&id=5392645">the sobbing Mr. Pearson</a> staggering from the room with his hand over his eyes. One smiles with pleasure.<br /><blockquote>"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." - Ralph Waldo Emerson<br /></blockquote>I do not know the exact nature of the consumer protection law or laws invoked by Pearson in this case, and I do not care. If laws have been passed that make this type of action possible, it is the proper function of the court system to declare them null and void, dead on arrival, unconstitutional, and ridiculous. The bureaucrats who proposed, wrote, and enacted such laws should be publicly ridiculed and made to work at a dry cleaner's shop.<br /><br />Mr. Pearson most likely deserves more pity than contempt. As I, and many others wiser and more articulate than I, have said elsewhere, the cost of untreated mental illness in our society is impossible to know because it is so often reflected in bizarre occurrences such as this.<hr /><br /><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/06/17/ludicrous_lawsuits/"><br />Boston Globe Editorial, "Ludicrous Lawsuits," by Jeff Jacoby 17 June 2007.</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061402361.html?hpid=moreheadlines"><br />Fashion perspective on this story from The Washington Post 14 June 2007.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-87945903692808447992007-06-12T20:25:00.000-07:002007-06-12T21:35:32.407-07:00You'd Better Watch OutI have an imperfectly formed idea that I am hesitant to express, but I'll try. Many of us, perhaps even all of us, at times are frustrated by what seems like God's perversity -- if such a thing may be thought of.<br /><br />Without going into my personal beliefs, which I might describe as skeptically agnostic Buddhism, I am at a loss to explain why we all insist on expecting that which we have no reason to expect. That is, given history, and our own personal observations of life as we know it from living, we know that random senseless negative things often happen. Oftentimes these come as acts of our fellow human beings, and we are astonished at the mindless evil that seems to infect our brothers and sisters on Earth.<br /><br />Since these things have happened since time immemorial, and continue to happen, why are we surprised and offended when they happen near to us? (And I don't mean to be cold or unsympathetic in saying this -- remember, this is not a well-formed thought or argument. I am indulging in thinking "out loud" here -- although it's more of thinking "in print." ) What I mean to say is, we are quick to abandon logical thought when our emotions are involved. And we (that is to say, many of us) are often quick to point the finger at whatever Higher Power we believe in and chastise Him/Her or Them or It for being cruel to us.<br /><br />But if there is an HP, and if such a being is omnipotent, then must we not accept that He, She, They, or It is or are (at least in our perception) incredibly cruel at times?<br /><br />Or -- and <a href="http://www.gurus.com/dougdeb/Courses/bestsellers/Kushner/BTmain.htm">this idea comes from Harold S. Kushner,</a> who wrote <span style="font-style: italic;">When Bad Things Happen to Good People</span> -- perhaps we need to understand that there is Evil, really, and that it is a force. Perhaps our "good" HP is not actually responsible, at least not directly, for everything. Perhaps even God must obey natural laws. Einstein, a notable agnostic, reported that the more he discovered about the laws of nature, the more he saw the unmistakable hand of God.<br /><br />I am certainly not a traditional "believer," in any religion. But in spite of the presumption implicit in my agnosticism, I find myself looking askance at those who are, the Theists that I have heard throughout my life who are ready (it seems) to drop their trust and belief in their God when tragedy strikes them. Why would a rational, thinking person observing the world around her or him "adopt" a God and then blame that God for all the evil that was going on before, and that which transpires after, such adoption? Of what is Faith made? Is it a sort of love blindness that is cast aside when the Heavenly Paramour proves untrue? And of what use is such a faith?<br /><br />The idea of God that was prevalent in my youth was nearly the same as the idea of Santa Claus. If you are good, God and Santa will reward you. Now, as we grow up, we learn that Santa was just a fairy tale, but perhaps we miss the idea that God as Santa is just as much of a fairy tale. Many, I fear, never drop the childish conception of Santa/God until one day they are disillusioned by an injustice that gets their attention. This is often an event in their personal life, but it can as well be something far away, perhaps in another country such as Sudan, where the enormity of atrocities is more than our minds can really grasp. Such a shock knocks the Santa/God out of his sleigh in the sky, and we are left with an angry, disillusioned pseudo-atheist.<br /><br />One should be as positive as one can be in the face of painful tragedy. If life goes on, one day it will be behind you, and perhaps you will be able to forget it, at least most of the time. But (in my humble, heathen, skeptically agnostic Buddhist opinion) one must look for whatever wisdom and strength might come from the action of Evil in our lives, because it seems to me that therein lies redemption.<br /><br />What Kushner and others would have us learn is that <span style="font-style: italic;">acceptance is the key</span>. The world, reality, is what it is. We can fool ourselves and think that when things are going along in a fashion that is pleasant to us, that that is the way things "ought" to be, but <span style="font-style: italic;">in reality</span>, things are what they are at any given time, without regard to our judgement or opinion of them. When we make the effort toward accepting that which we cannot change (yeah, I know, it's the Serenity Prayer), it seems to me that we are the closest to It, Them, Her, or Him as we ever get.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-60891973458520685562007-05-31T21:15:00.000-07:002007-05-31T22:55:35.570-07:00Pin the War on the DemocratsI have been more or less a Democrat for most of my voting life. There, it's out in the open.<br /><br />My main reason for this is that I've always looked to the Democratic Party to be the voice of and for lower to middle income people, and that's where my income has mostly been throughout my life. Furthermore, I believe in the ideals of humanism and liberalism, and American Civil Liberties, specifically as they are written in the Bill of Rights. And in spite of his deplorable behavior and status as a slaveowner, I have been an admirer of Thomas Jefferson. These things have made me a follower of The Donkey, the Party of the People.<br /><br />In truth, I've felt more attracted to such "third" parties as the Liberal party, the Greens, and the various Socialist and Communist manifestations that decorate some of our ballots here in the Land of the Free. But there are always problems with this, under the reality that what we have here in Columbia the Gem is a Two-Party System. A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush. And apparently in some places it really, really <span style="font-style: italic;">was</span> a vote for George Bush. And furthermore, there are a lot more local elections than national ones, and the local ones tend to be mostly Elephants, Donkeys, Initiatives, and Judges.<br /><br />So it is to the Democrats that I turn for hope, most of the time. And although I can hear the howls and groans as I say this, my life was better during the 8 years of Mr. Clinton than it was before or after. So it is unsurprising if not exactly logical that I find myself looking wistfully toward the ranks of the 2008 Democratic hopefuls, peering intently, trying to find some glowing ember that could be fanned into the flame of Victory. And it was more than a little uplifting last November when "my" party won back the majority in Congress.<br /><br />But now that Mrs. Pelosi and her entourage have had 5 months in office, and the Primary Contenders are revealing themselves, what golden ideas, what inspired message, what hopeful platform have they constructed on which to build that new shining ideal USA in the Post-Iraq Debacle Peak Oil Environmental Disaster Era?<br /><br />What hopeful platform indeed.<br /><br />Cindy Sheehan, that unfortunate and brave lady who lost her son in the Oil War, did her best to carry her message to the country. <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070618/nichols">John Nichols, writing in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Nation</span></a>, quoted her thus:<br /><br /><blockquote>"...when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of 'right or left,' but 'right and wrong.'"</blockquote>Sheehan asks too much of our Elected Representatives: she asks that they actually take a stand and do something. Something that might be unpopular, could have repercussions, could actually be <span style="font-style: italic;">wrong</span>. That's the thing, in my mind, the old saying that us working stiffs have: "People who don't do anything never make mistakes." Sheehan asked that the Donkeys, elected to the majority in the Congress of the USA by a people sick of a senseless war for the Last Drops, fulfill their implicit promise to their constituency and begin the end of Bush's Folly.<br /><br />So what did they do? First, they bravely presented a Bill to His Shrubliness that he had already promised not to sign. The boy from Crawford kept his promise. And they didn't have the votes to override the veto. So they caved. Yep. They voted another $120 Billion with a B to keep it going just a Little Longer. Because, after all, you can't just abandon our boys and girls over there.<br /><br />Mrs. Sheehan, quoted by <a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/laura_flanders/2007/05/why_cindy_sheehan_retired_1.html">Laura Flanders in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Guardian</span>:</a><br /><br /><blockquote>"There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage.<br /><br />"... What stakes do they have in keeping this occupation going?"<br /></blockquote><br />And that's how I'm feeling, too. Who are these people? Why do I vote for them? In what way do they "represent" my interests? This isn't about politics, or your phony "careers," or the Glorious Democratic Party, either. It's about not killing hundreds more people in the (slim) hope of preserving some semblance of stability in the Middle East so that we can continue draining it of crude to keep our Suburbans and Tahoes and Navigators and (God Help Us) Hummers on the highways. I don't care if millions of ignorant morons will send you badly spelled emails calling you lackeys of Satan. I don't care if you don't get re-elected. I don't care if you have to duct tape a piece of rebar down the middle of your back because you don't have a spine. We elected you worthless bags of wind to End The War so get busy and end it.<br /><br />And I am not fooled by the "no" votes of the Presidential Hopefuls. Bad news, Dems: I am not the smartest guy in the USA, either. So probably a few million other Americans noticed that your "No" votes didn't mean a damned thing in the foregone conclusion of passage of the $120 Billion Bill to Kill some more American boys and girls (and a few thousand more Iraqis, too, incidentally). You keep your voting record, put it on your wall or something. If one of you people had stood up in the House or the Senate, screaming bloody murder, promising to resign her or his post and party affiliation if that bill was passed, and then gone through with it! Ah, then we would have seen something like America! America, the land of the Free and the home of the Brave, where people stand up for what they believe in and hang the consequences.<br /><br />I know, I'm irrational.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times;"><blockquote>No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations.<br /> From <span style="font-style: italic;">Civil Disobedience,</span> Part III, paragraph 18, Henry David Thoreau 1849<br /> http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html<br /><br /></blockquote></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823114491456667779.post-85262160844029607452007-05-20T15:11:00.000-07:002007-05-20T19:44:19.039-07:00A Plausible ExplanationKurt Vonnegut is dead, but his wisdom is not. In <a href="http://www.thenation.com/">The Nation</a>, Robert Scheer writes about Vonnegut's theory that there are Psychotic Personalities (PPs), "the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences." Scheer's article is entitled <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/truthdig">The Scum Also Rises</a>, and focuses on the recent Paul Wolfowitz debacle, but he points out that many others in the present administration, and many of the so-called neoconservative movement, fit this personality description rather well.<br /><br />This brings up the question of blame: is a person who is pathologically devoid of morality responsible for his acts? When he knowingly brings pain and adversity to others in the world is he excused by virtue of his "problem?" Scheer answers this question in pointing out that Vonnegut said quite clearly that such personalities would be fully aware of the suffering that they cause, that they simply do not (can not?) care, and so have no mental mechanism whereby to control their own actions simply because they are damaging to others. Knowing this, is it not logical and sensible that we would keep such PPs as far away from positions of responsibility as possible? Asking whether or not they are to blame is beside the point: to avoid the destruction that the Wolfowitzes, the Bushes, the Rumsfelds, the Cheneys, and other PPs both identified and unidentified, cause and will continue to cause, these misfits must not again be elected or appointed to the type of positions they occupy today.<br /><br />Piece of cake. All we have to do is inform the American Public (or actually <a href="http://elections.gmu.edu/">the 40% of it that votes</a>) and at the same time insist on accountability from all elected representatives such as Senators and Congressman who investigate and approve executive appointments at all levels. Yep. That's it.<br /><br />But seriously, one finds oneself wondering about this phenomenon. Is it new? And if so, from whence cometh it? Nature or nurture? Are we perhaps breeding PPs in our acquistion-crazy competitive football videogame culture? To greatly oversimplify (skipping over matters of class, environment, ancestry): perhaps some of us become Homer Simpson, some Mr. Burns. There are more Homers, but that's the way of the world. And it only takes a handful of PPs to search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in an oil-rich country ruled by an unpopular dictator, <a href="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html">bully a law through Congress that makes a mockery of the Bill of Rights in the aftermath of one of the worst disasters in US history</a>, illegally <a href="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm">imprison an unknown number of foreign nationals </a>in a US military base on an island in the Caribbean, illegally and unethically commit a wholesale firing of civil servants, i.e. US Attorneys, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html?sub=AR">because they failed to toe the party line and investigate "voter fraud" complaints</a> vigorously enough, etc., etc.<br /><br />On bad days, I think that we have exactly the leadership that we deserve.<br /><br />At other times, I think that the tyrants of today gave up old-fashioned tyranny a few decades ago. They probably chuckle at the antics of Kim Jong Il and Senior General Than Shwe (of Burma). Our new, 21st century totalitarians are believers in that timeworn cliche from Sales meetings immemorial: "Work smarter, not harder." Why bother ordering all those people around, controlling their hearts and minds, regimenting and directing their lives? It's much easier to control the masses by manipulating the economy and starting a phony war.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com