Greetings friends and fellow citizens. As the new year is already a third over, I am looking back on an interesting time indeed in the history of our nation. Due to the continuing corruption of our government and corporations, we have seen open civil unrest in the form of mass protests across the nation. Yes, I am speaking of the "Occupy" and "Anonymous" movements, though in honesty the only thing I have seen occupied are public parks. Both the Occupy and Anonymous movements, as I see it, have several critical failings that are holding them back.
The first is the lack of a defined agenda, statement of purpose, or tangible platform of grievances. Admittedly, these seem to be three ways of saying the same thing, but they are not. They are inter-related, but definitely different from each other.
A statement of purpose defines why the organization or movement exists in a general way. The environmental movement, for example, began as an attempt to address the concerns of how we are destroying our world with pollution, destructive development of our wilderness areas, and wasteful misuse of our natural resources. As I see it, both Occupy and Anonymous need to be defined in the same way.
An agenda is a defined set of goals or objectives. An agenda can be as simple as wanting to educate the public about a given topic to motivate action, such as pursuing the passage of an anti-littering ordinance to reduce the debris on the streets and sidewalks of the community, or as elaborate as a full "manifesto" of political or social objectives.
A platform of grievances is a detailed explanation of why an organization is seeking reform. Perhaps the best examples I could give of this is the Declaration of Independence that heralded the American Revolution and the Declaration of Sentiments that heralded the beginnings of the women's movement in the United States.
The second, and Occupy has been making some serious strides in this in the past few months, has been the lack of public education about who the organizations are and why they are doing what they are doing. Comments I made to members of Occupy Denver back in December seem to have motivated them to begin public education efforts, efforts I truly hope will continue and catch on with other Occupy groups.
The third is, neither organization has, up until Occupy's recent changes, ever offered any realistic alternatives or solutions. It makes no sense to protest and say things should change if there is no defined ideas about what should change or how it should be changed. Our society doesn't just need protests to wake it up; it needs ideas of how to solve the problems.
Lastly, protest groups should never undermine their own credibility by engaging in hostile or criminal activities. Occupy has had its problems with anarchists "joining" the protests and causing trouble, but has made significant efforts to distance themselves from those elements. Anonymous seems to be doing just the opposite. Attacking various companies and websites, regardless of their reasons, are making them a nuisance in the eyes of most, though their attacks on companies hosting pedophile group forums and websites did win some brownie points with the public.
While both groups claim the lack of organization is their strength (i.e. no identifiable "leaders" to be arrested), this lack of organization is also a weakness. The corporations and governments they are protesting are well-organized and well-equipped to respond to the threat Occupy and Anonymous represent to them. A modicum of organization would work in favor of Occupy and Anonymous, particularly if that organization is targeted at educating the public about what the organizations are fighting for and what they would like our society to try in response to those issues.
Showing posts with label common sense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common sense. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Common Sense on Sex Offenders
This was originally a comment post I wrote on another blog site. I thought the content important enough to revise and post here.
-----------------------------------------------------
It saddens me to see such strife on issues like sex offender residency restriction laws when it seems most involved in the conversation (if you can call it that) seem to have no idea of the reality regarding sex offenders.
According to the Department of Justice, convicted sex offenders are the second least likely to commit a like offense within ten years (less than 8 percent). The least likely are single-incident murderers (less than 5 percent). Under closer scrutiny, reoffense for child molestation is comparable to that of single-incident murderers.
Additionally, those who do reoffend are most frequently those who are under the stress of unemployment, harassment by neighbors, and instability in or lack of adequate housing.
Residency restriction laws also interfere with the application and enforcement of the "Megan's law" provisions each state has by denying the sex offender the ability to establish a reliable residence. Those that do often find malicious neighbors registering a "day care" within the restriction distance of the sex offender's new residency and in short order, a notice for the sex offender to move immediately with a time frame as little as 24 hours in some municipalities.
These facts alone refute the claims that there is no argument against the residency restriction laws. These laws have, in direct violation of constitutional law no less, denied sex offenders not only a place to live but participation in religious activities, educational opportunities, and even significant work opportunities. They essentially, after the sex offender has done his or her time, add the punishment of banishment from society altogether.
Yes, what they did in the past was heinious, but so too are the actions our society is doing to them after the fact. We cannot and must not use their past conduct to justify throwing out everything our nation represents, which is exactly what we are doing with these laws. In our desperate desire to protect our children, we are forgetting who we are.
And lastly, I ask each of you this ... if it was, one day, your own son or daughter who was caught up in a sexually-based offense, would you want them banished forever from society? Check out www.rickyslife.com before you answer that.
-----------------------------------------------------
It saddens me to see such strife on issues like sex offender residency restriction laws when it seems most involved in the conversation (if you can call it that) seem to have no idea of the reality regarding sex offenders.
According to the Department of Justice, convicted sex offenders are the second least likely to commit a like offense within ten years (less than 8 percent). The least likely are single-incident murderers (less than 5 percent). Under closer scrutiny, reoffense for child molestation is comparable to that of single-incident murderers.
Additionally, those who do reoffend are most frequently those who are under the stress of unemployment, harassment by neighbors, and instability in or lack of adequate housing.
Residency restriction laws also interfere with the application and enforcement of the "Megan's law" provisions each state has by denying the sex offender the ability to establish a reliable residence. Those that do often find malicious neighbors registering a "day care" within the restriction distance of the sex offender's new residency and in short order, a notice for the sex offender to move immediately with a time frame as little as 24 hours in some municipalities.
These facts alone refute the claims that there is no argument against the residency restriction laws. These laws have, in direct violation of constitutional law no less, denied sex offenders not only a place to live but participation in religious activities, educational opportunities, and even significant work opportunities. They essentially, after the sex offender has done his or her time, add the punishment of banishment from society altogether.
Yes, what they did in the past was heinious, but so too are the actions our society is doing to them after the fact. We cannot and must not use their past conduct to justify throwing out everything our nation represents, which is exactly what we are doing with these laws. In our desperate desire to protect our children, we are forgetting who we are.
And lastly, I ask each of you this ... if it was, one day, your own son or daughter who was caught up in a sexually-based offense, would you want them banished forever from society? Check out www.rickyslife.com before you answer that.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
When America Sneezes
Disaster was narrowly averted today by swift action of the Federal Reserve and Federal Government.
In the past week, concerns have been expressed over the potential of the United States entering another recession. At first, response was weak. Over the weekend it found reinforcements, causing several major foreign exchanges to plunge in value and causing the New York Stock Exchange to drop almost 500 points in the first hour or two of trading.
It was only after the Federal Reserve dropped a primary interest rate by 3/4 point, the largest such move in years. Additionally the U.S. Federal Government pledged to spend $150 billion to stimulate the economy.
Is this necessarily a good thing? Maybe, but maybe not.
The Federal Government spending to encourage consumer and business spending is hypocritical. Why? Because they are spending our money taken through taxation instead of letting us spend it ourselves. This is, essentially, the point of the broken window fallacy.
In the broken window fallacy, a young boy breaks the window of a baker who, naturally, has to replace the broken pane. His neighbors get to talking about the issue, debating whether the young boy should be punished. On one hand the broken pane creates work. The glazer to make and install the glass is the first beneficiary. The money then passes to the glass supplier for the materials, to the clothier when the glazer buys a new shirt, and to the grocer when the glazer buys food for his family.
This is the way the government thinks. Giving money to welfare for example improves the income for the grocery merchants and maybe the landlords if they are given cash benefits for such.
The other side of the coin is this. The baker has to shell out the money to pay the glazer and thus has less to spend on supplies for his business, clothing for his own family, and even food. This is also the effect that government taxation has on the average citizen.
Government action over the years has not effectively lowered the taxes on the poor, only those who are already well off (of which virtually every politician is before they ever enter politics) and has very little to no effect on overall poverty. Why? Because, in truth, the poor have no more money than they did before. Some of them are just fed a little (and I do mean a little) better.
The problem in our society is not lack of government spending. It is bankers siphoning off profit for themselves by making economic slaves out of everyone else. A slave is forced to labor for the comfort and profit of another. The bible describes this relationship well when it says the debtor is slave of the creditor.
An example of this is overdraft fees. It costs the banks around $2 to process the average overdraft. The bank then charges the consumer $30-50 for covering the overdraft. If they return the item, most of them still charge the fee of $30-50. It is completely up to the arbitrary decision of a faceless banking bureaucrat who is seldom accountable for his/her decision.
Another example is the banks charging higher interest rates the lower the economic level of the borrower, allegedly because of the higher risk indicated by a lower credit rating. The net effect is the bank makes more money on low income citizens per dollar loaned than lending to "more worthy" borrowers.
The government spending programs are also frequently financed by borrowing from these same international bankers, making the government itself slave of its creditors. The fundamental base of economic problems is not consumer unwillingness to spend, it is their inability to spend because they are paying so much of their income in taxes, bank fees, and interest rates.
Word to the wise, think for yourselves. The government, big business, and banking industry stopped being our friends before World War II. Until we wake up to the truth and start working on things ourselves things are only going to get worse.
By the way, I will be returning to more frequent posting starting tomorrow. I had some financial issues and am having my Internet connection restored tomorrow morning.
In the past week, concerns have been expressed over the potential of the United States entering another recession. At first, response was weak. Over the weekend it found reinforcements, causing several major foreign exchanges to plunge in value and causing the New York Stock Exchange to drop almost 500 points in the first hour or two of trading.
It was only after the Federal Reserve dropped a primary interest rate by 3/4 point, the largest such move in years. Additionally the U.S. Federal Government pledged to spend $150 billion to stimulate the economy.
Is this necessarily a good thing? Maybe, but maybe not.
The Federal Government spending to encourage consumer and business spending is hypocritical. Why? Because they are spending our money taken through taxation instead of letting us spend it ourselves. This is, essentially, the point of the broken window fallacy.
In the broken window fallacy, a young boy breaks the window of a baker who, naturally, has to replace the broken pane. His neighbors get to talking about the issue, debating whether the young boy should be punished. On one hand the broken pane creates work. The glazer to make and install the glass is the first beneficiary. The money then passes to the glass supplier for the materials, to the clothier when the glazer buys a new shirt, and to the grocer when the glazer buys food for his family.
This is the way the government thinks. Giving money to welfare for example improves the income for the grocery merchants and maybe the landlords if they are given cash benefits for such.
The other side of the coin is this. The baker has to shell out the money to pay the glazer and thus has less to spend on supplies for his business, clothing for his own family, and even food. This is also the effect that government taxation has on the average citizen.
Government action over the years has not effectively lowered the taxes on the poor, only those who are already well off (of which virtually every politician is before they ever enter politics) and has very little to no effect on overall poverty. Why? Because, in truth, the poor have no more money than they did before. Some of them are just fed a little (and I do mean a little) better.
The problem in our society is not lack of government spending. It is bankers siphoning off profit for themselves by making economic slaves out of everyone else. A slave is forced to labor for the comfort and profit of another. The bible describes this relationship well when it says the debtor is slave of the creditor.
An example of this is overdraft fees. It costs the banks around $2 to process the average overdraft. The bank then charges the consumer $30-50 for covering the overdraft. If they return the item, most of them still charge the fee of $30-50. It is completely up to the arbitrary decision of a faceless banking bureaucrat who is seldom accountable for his/her decision.
Another example is the banks charging higher interest rates the lower the economic level of the borrower, allegedly because of the higher risk indicated by a lower credit rating. The net effect is the bank makes more money on low income citizens per dollar loaned than lending to "more worthy" borrowers.
The government spending programs are also frequently financed by borrowing from these same international bankers, making the government itself slave of its creditors. The fundamental base of economic problems is not consumer unwillingness to spend, it is their inability to spend because they are paying so much of their income in taxes, bank fees, and interest rates.
Word to the wise, think for yourselves. The government, big business, and banking industry stopped being our friends before World War II. Until we wake up to the truth and start working on things ourselves things are only going to get worse.
By the way, I will be returning to more frequent posting starting tomorrow. I had some financial issues and am having my Internet connection restored tomorrow morning.
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Cost of Standing Up
Most people don't consider the effects their actions have on others. As advocates and activists, we have to consider everything. Every idea we generate, every cause we fight for, will have effects far beyond our simple circle.
Take for example Colorado's institution of the CICP (Colorado Indigent Care Program). Initially the program was to be a safety net for those who for one reason or another were indigent, unable to pay for their medical care.
I have been speaking to a young lady who's experience tells another tale.
Recently she broke her arm when she fell while running for a bus. It was a homeless man who helped her up and out of the street to prevent her getting run over. Chalk one up for a marginalized citizen being there for another when needed, first of all.
The problem is this, she was turned away from several facilities because her broken arm was not life threatening, thus in their definition, not an emergency condition.
Excuse me?
They went further by stating the would not treat her without prepayment.
Say what?
That's right, she was turned away because she did not have insurance, cash up front, or a CICP card. Education time, boys and girls.
This law is not abrogated or mitigated by ANY state or subsequent Federal law.
Of course, in at least one case, it doesn't surprise me. University Hospital (one of the above guilty parties) had another incident years ago. A man was working for the hospital and had a heart attack. His supervisor from the hospital came to his INTENSIVE CARE room and informed him he could either take early retirement from the hospital or he would be fired immmediately.
Understand, University Hospital is a part of the University of Colorado educational system. If student nurses and doctors are seeing their instructors and residents making illegal decisions like there is nothing wrong with them, they too are learning to ignore the law. This is not the kind of scenario I would want my niece to learn from, and she wants to be a pediatrician.
God help us if this kind of criminal conduct is allowed to pass unchallenged.
Take for example Colorado's institution of the CICP (Colorado Indigent Care Program). Initially the program was to be a safety net for those who for one reason or another were indigent, unable to pay for their medical care.
I have been speaking to a young lady who's experience tells another tale.
Recently she broke her arm when she fell while running for a bus. It was a homeless man who helped her up and out of the street to prevent her getting run over. Chalk one up for a marginalized citizen being there for another when needed, first of all.
The problem is this, she was turned away from several facilities because her broken arm was not life threatening, thus in their definition, not an emergency condition.
Excuse me?
They went further by stating the would not treat her without prepayment.
Say what?
That's right, she was turned away because she did not have insurance, cash up front, or a CICP card. Education time, boys and girls.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. (Source: Wikipedia.org)
This law is not abrogated or mitigated by ANY state or subsequent Federal law.
Of course, in at least one case, it doesn't surprise me. University Hospital (one of the above guilty parties) had another incident years ago. A man was working for the hospital and had a heart attack. His supervisor from the hospital came to his INTENSIVE CARE room and informed him he could either take early retirement from the hospital or he would be fired immmediately.
Understand, University Hospital is a part of the University of Colorado educational system. If student nurses and doctors are seeing their instructors and residents making illegal decisions like there is nothing wrong with them, they too are learning to ignore the law. This is not the kind of scenario I would want my niece to learn from, and she wants to be a pediatrician.
God help us if this kind of criminal conduct is allowed to pass unchallenged.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Good Riddance
It sounds like a joke.
People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.
They call it "Good Riddance Day."
The Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.
It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.
We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No - they are worse - they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.
We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really want it (like a computer), or simply because it is the lastest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).
We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.
We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.
We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see one of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.
We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.
The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.
Lets work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution". Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.
People taking pictures, lists, even fully paid mortgages and publicly shredding the documents in what is quickly becoming an annual tradition.
They call it "Good Riddance Day."
The Good Riddance Day movement is, for all intents and purposes, a type of reverse New Year's resolution. Instead of developing new, improved selves and habits, we are supposed to let go of past mistakes and bad habits. This year one man's list included giving up his addiction to shoplifting.
It sparked me into thinking about things we as a society need to give up in order to move onward into the future.
We need to give up racism. This is probably one of the biggest wastes of human energy in the United States. From wasted energy committing racism to the wasted energy seeing racists behind every tree, car, and building corner. Both extremes must go. They are useless. No - they are worse - they corrupt and distract us. They are not useless, they are malicious. The sooner we say good riddance to them, the better.
We need to give up consumerism. This does not mean to stop shopping for food, clothing, etc. What this means is for us to think about what we are buying. Are we buying something because we need it (like food), because we really want it (like a computer), or simply because it is the lastest thing (like an 8GB iPod when we already own a 4GB iPod that we only have 2GB of music on)? If we settle for a $12 pair of store-brand pants instead of $50 Levi pants we free up considerable money that we could save in the bank, invest in mutual funds, or afford other things that we really want, like taking our significant other on dates more frequently (yes, mental and emotional goods are important too).
We need to give up credit use, both personally and nationally. Right now we owe so much as a nation it would take an entire year's income from everyone to pay it off. This is not just an economic issue, but an issue of national security. Some of our biggest creditors are China and Saudi Arabia, two countries who have proven to have less than our best interests at heart.
We need to give up or put off pork-barrel projects until, if and when, we can actually afford them. Our government is one of the most wasteful structures and organizations known to modern man. It needs to be put on an economic diet, for the health and safety of us all.
We need to give up selfishness. Think of those who are less fortunate than you. When you see one of the red meters in places like downtown Denver, Seattle, or whatever town or city you are in that let you donate to the homeless programs of your community, put a dollar or two of change into it. If you see someone who is homeless and they ask for help getting lunch, take them to McDonald's or Taco Bell and buy them lunch if you are worried about them spending the money on drugs or alcohol. And for God's sake, turn off the TV when your kid asks for help with their homework. Stop being so selfish with your resources like time and money. If you give just a little, you help improve our entire society, and it really doesn't hurt you. In fact, you just might end up feeling good about yourself for a day or two.
We need to give up road rage and recklessness. Is it really worth risking killing yourself or someone else, just to get to work five minutes earlier or to "get back" at someone you think cut you off on the freeway? There is a man sitting in the state pen right now in Colorado who thought that it was. He is serving time for murder for causing a road rage related accident on a freeway in Aurora, Colorado that killed two people.
The list could go on and on. Think about all the things wrong with your community, your state, and our nation. Make a list if you have to. Then shred or burn it. Let all those things go. Then join with your fellow citizens and lets make the necessary changes in our society to make those things relics of the past.
Lets work toward the day when our children ask questions like "what was war" or "what do they mean by pollution". Together we can make it happen. We just have to let go of the past and say good riddance to it.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Common Sense? Or Corporate Neglect?
This week a promising young girl died from liver failure that followed a leukemia bone marrow transplant.
The insurance company, managing a self-insuring employer, claims it consulted with an in-house transplant expert and two outside doctors about her situation, then determined that the liver transplant she desperately needed was experimental and not covered under the insurance policy of her father's employer.
Then, supposedly out of the goodness of their hearts, they decided to pay for the procedure themselves, but only after family and friends of the girl began picketing outside their offices. Nothing gets the attention of companies like that quicker than bad publicity and public relations. But it was too late.
At the funeral, no one mentioned the insurance company's name, but apparently they will in court.
From what I have learned of such matters, once an organ fails a leukemia patient, their chances of living, even after such a transplant, are slim. We, as a society want to be compassionate, yet we must many times draw a line to this compassion. Doctors have to decide if one patient who needs the same organ might have a better chance of survival, for example. At this very moment, in an apartment across from mine, lives a child who is not even two years old who is awaiting a liver transplant. The doctors say, if they can find one in time, she has an excellent chance of getting to see her grandchildren.
It is not an easy choice to decide who lives and who dies. I for one do not envy any doctor who has to make such a decision, but it is the doctors caring for the patient who should make such decisions in cases like this, not insurance providers.
The insurance company, managing a self-insuring employer, claims it consulted with an in-house transplant expert and two outside doctors about her situation, then determined that the liver transplant she desperately needed was experimental and not covered under the insurance policy of her father's employer.
Then, supposedly out of the goodness of their hearts, they decided to pay for the procedure themselves, but only after family and friends of the girl began picketing outside their offices. Nothing gets the attention of companies like that quicker than bad publicity and public relations. But it was too late.
At the funeral, no one mentioned the insurance company's name, but apparently they will in court.
From what I have learned of such matters, once an organ fails a leukemia patient, their chances of living, even after such a transplant, are slim. We, as a society want to be compassionate, yet we must many times draw a line to this compassion. Doctors have to decide if one patient who needs the same organ might have a better chance of survival, for example. At this very moment, in an apartment across from mine, lives a child who is not even two years old who is awaiting a liver transplant. The doctors say, if they can find one in time, she has an excellent chance of getting to see her grandchildren.
It is not an easy choice to decide who lives and who dies. I for one do not envy any doctor who has to make such a decision, but it is the doctors caring for the patient who should make such decisions in cases like this, not insurance providers.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Censorship of Opinions and Facts
Check out what I found on a blog allegedly ''discussing'' the issue of false accusations.
Note: Comments are limited to feminists or those who can be respectful of feminists and their efforts to fight sexual exploitation. If you want to excuse or minimize the behavior of those who harm others, make the person exploited responsible for their own exploitation, call those who label their experiences rape liars, or tell us that we should be focusing on more important issues, please do so elsewhere.
This is typical in most ''discussions'' on controversial issues. It's alright to talk about the issue, just don't say anything that disagrees with us or that might prove us wrong about it. Funny thing is, I read just this morning a report from a college professor who analyzed several hundred rape accusations at his college and local police department who found that one-half to two-thirds of those reports were either outright fictitious (lies) or unsubstantiated (not sure of the distinction between those two categories, to be honest).
Add to that the number of men convicted of rape managing to prove their innocence through DNA testing and it leads one to wonder ... just what is really going on?
Among the possible scenarios (other than the victim lying) include mistaken identity over who the actual rapist was, miscommunication (or lack of communication) between the man and woman leading to an assumption of willingness, and ''buyer's remorse'' where the woman claims rape because she suddenly decided having sex the night before wasn't such a good idea.
Any one of these can cause an innocent man to go to prison not just for years, but for decades for a crime he never committed or did not knowingly commit. It is a bit more serious than putting a man in jail for speeding in an area that has no posted speed limit, but the basic concept is the same.
Years ago women had an almost perfect blackmail weapon, called ''breach of promise'' that they used against men. Supposedly it was a law to prevent rapist men from seducing innocent women with promises of marriage, but it was rampantly used by women to blackmail men instead. Legislations nationwide recognized this problem and repealed the laws.
Today, women have things like ''date rape'' laws and the threat of a man getting branded a ''sexual offender'' or ''sexual predator'' for the rest of their lives to replace this lost blackmail power. Laws that have been instituted to protect women from exploitation have themselves become a form of rape, this time with the men being the victim.
This is another case of a ''wicked issue'' that has no simple solutions. We as a society need open, frank discussion on the topic, not censorship like the Alas blog apparently has.
Recommended Reading
Note: Comments are limited to feminists or those who can be respectful of feminists and their efforts to fight sexual exploitation. If you want to excuse or minimize the behavior of those who harm others, make the person exploited responsible for their own exploitation, call those who label their experiences rape liars, or tell us that we should be focusing on more important issues, please do so elsewhere.
This is typical in most ''discussions'' on controversial issues. It's alright to talk about the issue, just don't say anything that disagrees with us or that might prove us wrong about it. Funny thing is, I read just this morning a report from a college professor who analyzed several hundred rape accusations at his college and local police department who found that one-half to two-thirds of those reports were either outright fictitious (lies) or unsubstantiated (not sure of the distinction between those two categories, to be honest).
Add to that the number of men convicted of rape managing to prove their innocence through DNA testing and it leads one to wonder ... just what is really going on?
Among the possible scenarios (other than the victim lying) include mistaken identity over who the actual rapist was, miscommunication (or lack of communication) between the man and woman leading to an assumption of willingness, and ''buyer's remorse'' where the woman claims rape because she suddenly decided having sex the night before wasn't such a good idea.
Any one of these can cause an innocent man to go to prison not just for years, but for decades for a crime he never committed or did not knowingly commit. It is a bit more serious than putting a man in jail for speeding in an area that has no posted speed limit, but the basic concept is the same.
Years ago women had an almost perfect blackmail weapon, called ''breach of promise'' that they used against men. Supposedly it was a law to prevent rapist men from seducing innocent women with promises of marriage, but it was rampantly used by women to blackmail men instead. Legislations nationwide recognized this problem and repealed the laws.
Today, women have things like ''date rape'' laws and the threat of a man getting branded a ''sexual offender'' or ''sexual predator'' for the rest of their lives to replace this lost blackmail power. Laws that have been instituted to protect women from exploitation have themselves become a form of rape, this time with the men being the victim.
This is another case of a ''wicked issue'' that has no simple solutions. We as a society need open, frank discussion on the topic, not censorship like the Alas blog apparently has.
Recommended Reading
Friday, December 14, 2007
Social Forgiveness of Branded Men
I'd like to hold my head up and be proud of who I am
But they won't let my secret go untold
I paid the debt I owed them,but they're still not satisfied
Now I'm a branded man out un the cold
- Merle Haggard, Branded Man
I've been a fan of Merle Haggard ever since I was a kid. His songs seemed to strike a cord with me. The one that touches me the most is Branded Man, the story of a man who was in prison and paid his debt to society, but was discriminated against after his release.
It might be just another song if it didn't reflect exactly how our society treats ex-offenders. Long ago, a man released from prison could move out of the state and start over. Now, thanks to computer technology and registration requirements for many ex-offenders, there is not only nowhere to hide, there is nowhere to start over.
We complain about the rampant crime in our society, yet we fail to realize we are, in part, responsible for our own mess.
Multiple studies, academic, governmental, and independent, have shown that ex-offenders who have steady, stable employment, housing, and community support services are far more likely to never commit another crime. Yet two-thirds of employers, if they know someone is an ex-felon, won't give them the chance. Many apartment complexes refuse to rent to them. Sex offenders in particular are victimized by this phenomena, being the only class of ex-offender who is required to uniformly not only register with the state they are living in, but in most states to have their picture, crime, and address posted on the Internet.
The basic question is, does this make us and our children any safer in our society? Statistics indicate the answer is no. By not allowing ex-offenders a chance to start over after paying their debt to society, we are setting them up for repeat behavior and endangering ourselves and our families.
Maybe we need to rethink this.
But they won't let my secret go untold
I paid the debt I owed them,but they're still not satisfied
Now I'm a branded man out un the cold
- Merle Haggard, Branded Man
I've been a fan of Merle Haggard ever since I was a kid. His songs seemed to strike a cord with me. The one that touches me the most is Branded Man, the story of a man who was in prison and paid his debt to society, but was discriminated against after his release.
It might be just another song if it didn't reflect exactly how our society treats ex-offenders. Long ago, a man released from prison could move out of the state and start over. Now, thanks to computer technology and registration requirements for many ex-offenders, there is not only nowhere to hide, there is nowhere to start over.
We complain about the rampant crime in our society, yet we fail to realize we are, in part, responsible for our own mess.
Multiple studies, academic, governmental, and independent, have shown that ex-offenders who have steady, stable employment, housing, and community support services are far more likely to never commit another crime. Yet two-thirds of employers, if they know someone is an ex-felon, won't give them the chance. Many apartment complexes refuse to rent to them. Sex offenders in particular are victimized by this phenomena, being the only class of ex-offender who is required to uniformly not only register with the state they are living in, but in most states to have their picture, crime, and address posted on the Internet.
The basic question is, does this make us and our children any safer in our society? Statistics indicate the answer is no. By not allowing ex-offenders a chance to start over after paying their debt to society, we are setting them up for repeat behavior and endangering ourselves and our families.
Maybe we need to rethink this.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Loyalty, Honor and Integrity
In my research, I have come across many complaints about the lack of loyalty in employees. This lack of loyalty is cited as a factor in the increased costs to businesses of hiring and training new employees. Due to this, many employers are today requiring a Bachelors degree or higher and/or three to five years work experience in hopes of limiting the amount of training they must do with a new employee.
The net effects of such educational requirements effectively shuts out a majority of newly educated or non-degreed employees who might otherwise be fully qualified to do the job. It has long been acknowledged that many potential employees who have a degree may or may not be ready for the job, being book-smart but not world-smart. It is also acknowledged by many that the lack of a degree does not necessarily mean the potential employee doesn't already have the skills for the job. Add to this the fact that most employers expect these highly educated/skilled employees to begin at the lowest pay rates in the company and one quickly begins seeing employee loyalty being undermined. Why should the employee show loyalty to a company that is disrespecting their skills, education and experience by not paying them livable wages?
For example, a new employee earning $8 an hour would have to work 40 hours normal time, plus 40 hours overtime, just to earn $40,000 a year, slightly over the amount the Colorado State government cites as being necessary for an acceptable quality of life here. This is based on a 2000 hour work year assuming 50 work weeks at 40 hours per week with two weeks unpaid vacation. The majority American workers do not get that many hours and many never qualify for the vacation time. As is my custom, let us turn to the words of our ancestors.
Rule #1 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must be willing to pay a fair wage for them.
Another area of loyalty undermining is the practice of arbitrary and discriminatory promotion and firings. How many times have we heard of an employee getting promoted not based on skill or experience, but on currying favor by taking undue credit for themselves? Or a highly skilled employee getting passed over for promotion or even fired over getting sick and not being able to work for a short time? Or a seasoned, skilled woman getting overlooked for a management position because of her gender or age? Or a loyal white male employee who is highly qualified getting passed over because the company must show themselves diversified by promoting a less qualified woman or minority.
Throw in employers outsourcing good paying jobs to third world countries and laying off thousands of American workers and I think you get the point. Loyalty earns loyalty.
Rule #2 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must treat them fairly and reward their hard work and loyalty.
I read an article recently about a Japanese technology development company. Employees were encouraged to take naps when they needed them and to take activity breaks throughout the day. They must have been doing something right because they had a third the amount of employee sick days as we have in America and about twice the productivity. I'll let you read into that what you will.
Here in America we balk at being required by law to give our employees a couple fifteen minute breaks and a half-hour for lunch each day. Forget about naps, we'll just fire them if they make mistakes due to fatigue. God forbid an employee plays solitaire on our computers, even if it is during their fifteen minute break.
The companies that are more flexible on such issues laud the increase in productivity and profitability, yet most companies still don't get it.
Rule #3 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must never patronize nor underestimate the abilities or willingness of their employees.
In summary, if American corporate society wants American workers to be more loyal, they must be more loyal and respectful to the employees. When we ignore the needs of our workers, disloyalty and betrayal are the least of our worries.
The net effects of such educational requirements effectively shuts out a majority of newly educated or non-degreed employees who might otherwise be fully qualified to do the job. It has long been acknowledged that many potential employees who have a degree may or may not be ready for the job, being book-smart but not world-smart. It is also acknowledged by many that the lack of a degree does not necessarily mean the potential employee doesn't already have the skills for the job. Add to this the fact that most employers expect these highly educated/skilled employees to begin at the lowest pay rates in the company and one quickly begins seeing employee loyalty being undermined. Why should the employee show loyalty to a company that is disrespecting their skills, education and experience by not paying them livable wages?
For example, a new employee earning $8 an hour would have to work 40 hours normal time, plus 40 hours overtime, just to earn $40,000 a year, slightly over the amount the Colorado State government cites as being necessary for an acceptable quality of life here. This is based on a 2000 hour work year assuming 50 work weeks at 40 hours per week with two weeks unpaid vacation. The majority American workers do not get that many hours and many never qualify for the vacation time. As is my custom, let us turn to the words of our ancestors.
A wealthy landowner cannot cultivate and improve his farm without spreading comfort and well-being around him. Rich and abundant crops, a numerous population and a prosperous countryside are the rewards for his efforts.
Antoine Lavoisier
Rule #1 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must be willing to pay a fair wage for them.
Another area of loyalty undermining is the practice of arbitrary and discriminatory promotion and firings. How many times have we heard of an employee getting promoted not based on skill or experience, but on currying favor by taking undue credit for themselves? Or a highly skilled employee getting passed over for promotion or even fired over getting sick and not being able to work for a short time? Or a seasoned, skilled woman getting overlooked for a management position because of her gender or age? Or a loyal white male employee who is highly qualified getting passed over because the company must show themselves diversified by promoting a less qualified woman or minority.
Throw in employers outsourcing good paying jobs to third world countries and laying off thousands of American workers and I think you get the point. Loyalty earns loyalty.
Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company? It's beyond me.
Zora Neale
Rule #2 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must treat them fairly and reward their hard work and loyalty.
I read an article recently about a Japanese technology development company. Employees were encouraged to take naps when they needed them and to take activity breaks throughout the day. They must have been doing something right because they had a third the amount of employee sick days as we have in America and about twice the productivity. I'll let you read into that what you will.
Here in America we balk at being required by law to give our employees a couple fifteen minute breaks and a half-hour for lunch each day. Forget about naps, we'll just fire them if they make mistakes due to fatigue. God forbid an employee plays solitaire on our computers, even if it is during their fifteen minute break.
The companies that are more flexible on such issues laud the increase in productivity and profitability, yet most companies still don't get it.
Pleasure in the job put perfection in the work.
Aristotle
Rule #3 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must never patronize nor underestimate the abilities or willingness of their employees.
In summary, if American corporate society wants American workers to be more loyal, they must be more loyal and respectful to the employees. When we ignore the needs of our workers, disloyalty and betrayal are the least of our worries.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Dude, Where's My Country?
When I started this blog, I had genuine concerns that we, as a nation, were bordering on becoming a de facto fascist nation. Little did I realize that it has already happened.
President Bush has, over the course of his presidency, signed over 700 new laws, and almost every time has included a presidential statement to the effect that he will follow the new law only if he thinks it is constitutional (regardless of what the Supreme Court says) and only if it does not impede his agenda for making the United States safer from terrorism.
The Brady bill, signed years ago, already made it possible for the government to track every gun owner in the nation and to deny gun ownership to anyone the Federal government deems undesirable. Several states have also made it a felony to militarily train yourself or to belong to a paramilitary organization not sanctioned by the state or Federal governments, whether you train with them or not.
The Federal government passed the Real ID Act two years ago, not by virtue of its merits, but by hiding it in a bill to reauthorize budgeting for the Department of Justice. Add to this the Federal courts' rejection of our long accepted right not to be required to carry an identification document and the increasing arrogance of and detainment of citizens by our law enforcement community, it may not be too long before someone with a hat and overcoat steps up to you and says, "Papers, please," just like Nazi Germany in the movies.
Am I over-reacting? I think not. There have been countless cases in the past five years especially where citizens have been arrested for refusing to show identification when arbitrarily demanded by law enforcement officers. After the Oklahoma City bombing, all the members of an otherwise peaceful paramilitary group in Colorado were arrested, most for simply being associated with the group, some for merely being on their mailing list. Several Arab-Americans have been arrested in the past six years, detained for months, subjected to brutal interrogations. Some of them have been released without so much as an apology, others are still MIA. Congress recently passed a law requiring the president to cooperate with Congressional investigations, a law which the president signed, then summarily declared he was going to ignore with or without the Supreme Court declaring whether it was constitutional or not.
Add to all that the administration's labeling of anyone daring to oppose them as unAmerican or potential insurgents and the governments long standing position that Federal laws supercede state laws, especially when the state laws seek to protect the rights of American citizens, and the recipe is almost complete for the United States to become the Fourth Reich.
To understand why I say these things are evidence, let's look at the typical characteristics of a fascist society. A fascist state is one where the needs of the state are viewed as outweighing the rights and needs of individuals and local communities. The following points are symptomatic of a fascist state:
#1 - Powerful and continuing nationalism
Fascists try to wrap themselves in symbols of the nation and encourage others to do the same. Flags end up everywhere and anyone who resists this trend is looked upon with suspicion of seditious tendencies. In the United States, this comes in the form of politicians rallying people behind ideas like a Constitutional Amendment making flag burning or desecration a Federal offense.
#2 - Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Read "approval of torture, extended imprisonment without charges, and denial of habeas corpus" in this one. All things our current administration is guilty of. Might as well throw in President Bush's effectively ignoring our right of representation by ignoring the laws passed by our duly elected Congress here, too.
#3 - Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Okay, this one is blatant. Let me think ... Iranians, terrorists, latent communists, sex offenders (all of them), anyone opposing the administration's policies, anyone who objects to the war in Iraq, and anyone wearing tennis shoes on planes. Oh, and let's not forget anyone who dares spank their kids for misbehaving.
#4 - Supremacy of the Military
What does that mean? In part it means the build-up of military forces and weapons at the expense of social support services, especially the cutting of funding for them that is diverted into military spending. Plenty of that going on these days.
#5 - Rampant Sexism
This includes "strengthening" gender roles, discouragement of alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, bisexuality, and BDSM, which the administration all considers deviant or asocial behaviors. None of that going on you say? What about the push for gender-specific education and gender-segregation in education? Or the push to outlaw same-sex unions? Pink and black triangles anyone?
#6 - Controlled Mass Media
Let's see here, control over the media ...
Shall I go on?
#7 - Obsession with National Security
Does this really need any explanation or examples? Look at today's newspaper. Bet there is a story related to this issue again today.
#8 - Religion and Government are Intertwined
Officially they deny this has happened, but many years ago the Supreme Court recognized humanism as fitting the legal definition of a religion. Humanism is, for all intents, the refusal of religious icons as inspiring the concepts of right and wrong in favor of humans themselves embodying such concepts. Just look at how atheists have influenced our social policies over the past 40 years.
#9 - Corporate Power is Protected
Okay, several points on this one:
No doubt there is more, but I am getting tired here.
#10 - Labor Power is Suppressed
Herein lies our dearly departed unions ... and any rights we had as corporate employees. (Walmart again, anyone?)
#11 - Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Okay, one side of this is obvious, the other, well, almost as obvious. On one hand we have multiple professors and teachers loosing their jobs or getting arrested for politically incorrect views and on the other we have "art" that insults the meaning of the word, entering into the realm of total obscenity in many cases while true, meaningful art languishes near death for funding.
#12 - Obsession with Crime and Punishment
How long have our politicians cried out every election "I'm tougher on crime than my opponent is!" Our jails and prisons are bursting at the seams and our leaders are all-too-ready to put more in them.
#13 - Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Don't get me started on this one, you will be reading for the next three days.
#14 - Fraudulent Elections
Want some real insights into this issue? Read Arianna Huffington's "How to Overthrow the Government" and you will learn more than you want to know, I promise you.
Most lists like this stop here, but I am going to add one more to give you something to think about.
#15 - Charismatic/Popular Leader/Dictator
When Hitler and Mussolini came to power, they did so on the backs of peasants and down-trodden citizens whom they wooed with promises of a better future under their "benign" rule. I think this is the only thing missing before the United States becomes totally fascist.
From here, I leave you to think about all this, but first, I shall give you some sources for additional information.
First, Old American Century is the source of the original list I used in writing this blog entry. They have many links to support articles and information. I highly recommend them.
And second, a wonderful article from CommonDreams.org, The Rise of Fascism in America
And lastly, The Dawning of Fascism in America, an article from SpiritOne.com.
As our good Lord said more than once, "He that hath ears, let him hear."
President Bush has, over the course of his presidency, signed over 700 new laws, and almost every time has included a presidential statement to the effect that he will follow the new law only if he thinks it is constitutional (regardless of what the Supreme Court says) and only if it does not impede his agenda for making the United States safer from terrorism.
The Brady bill, signed years ago, already made it possible for the government to track every gun owner in the nation and to deny gun ownership to anyone the Federal government deems undesirable. Several states have also made it a felony to militarily train yourself or to belong to a paramilitary organization not sanctioned by the state or Federal governments, whether you train with them or not.
The Federal government passed the Real ID Act two years ago, not by virtue of its merits, but by hiding it in a bill to reauthorize budgeting for the Department of Justice. Add to this the Federal courts' rejection of our long accepted right not to be required to carry an identification document and the increasing arrogance of and detainment of citizens by our law enforcement community, it may not be too long before someone with a hat and overcoat steps up to you and says, "Papers, please," just like Nazi Germany in the movies.
Am I over-reacting? I think not. There have been countless cases in the past five years especially where citizens have been arrested for refusing to show identification when arbitrarily demanded by law enforcement officers. After the Oklahoma City bombing, all the members of an otherwise peaceful paramilitary group in Colorado were arrested, most for simply being associated with the group, some for merely being on their mailing list. Several Arab-Americans have been arrested in the past six years, detained for months, subjected to brutal interrogations. Some of them have been released without so much as an apology, others are still MIA. Congress recently passed a law requiring the president to cooperate with Congressional investigations, a law which the president signed, then summarily declared he was going to ignore with or without the Supreme Court declaring whether it was constitutional or not.
Add to all that the administration's labeling of anyone daring to oppose them as unAmerican or potential insurgents and the governments long standing position that Federal laws supercede state laws, especially when the state laws seek to protect the rights of American citizens, and the recipe is almost complete for the United States to become the Fourth Reich.
To understand why I say these things are evidence, let's look at the typical characteristics of a fascist society. A fascist state is one where the needs of the state are viewed as outweighing the rights and needs of individuals and local communities. The following points are symptomatic of a fascist state:
#1 - Powerful and continuing nationalism
Fascists try to wrap themselves in symbols of the nation and encourage others to do the same. Flags end up everywhere and anyone who resists this trend is looked upon with suspicion of seditious tendencies. In the United States, this comes in the form of politicians rallying people behind ideas like a Constitutional Amendment making flag burning or desecration a Federal offense.
#2 - Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Read "approval of torture, extended imprisonment without charges, and denial of habeas corpus" in this one. All things our current administration is guilty of. Might as well throw in President Bush's effectively ignoring our right of representation by ignoring the laws passed by our duly elected Congress here, too.
#3 - Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Okay, this one is blatant. Let me think ... Iranians, terrorists, latent communists, sex offenders (all of them), anyone opposing the administration's policies, anyone who objects to the war in Iraq, and anyone wearing tennis shoes on planes. Oh, and let's not forget anyone who dares spank their kids for misbehaving.
#4 - Supremacy of the Military
What does that mean? In part it means the build-up of military forces and weapons at the expense of social support services, especially the cutting of funding for them that is diverted into military spending. Plenty of that going on these days.
#5 - Rampant Sexism
This includes "strengthening" gender roles, discouragement of alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, bisexuality, and BDSM, which the administration all considers deviant or asocial behaviors. None of that going on you say? What about the push for gender-specific education and gender-segregation in education? Or the push to outlaw same-sex unions? Pink and black triangles anyone?
#6 - Controlled Mass Media
Let's see here, control over the media ...
- Imprisonment of reporters for refusing to divulge sources
- Governmental censorship of key events by failure to make public notices
- Illegal propoganda aimed at American citizens
- Official denial of official actions
- Arrest of reporters who "get too close" to the truth
Shall I go on?
#7 - Obsession with National Security
Does this really need any explanation or examples? Look at today's newspaper. Bet there is a story related to this issue again today.
#8 - Religion and Government are Intertwined
Officially they deny this has happened, but many years ago the Supreme Court recognized humanism as fitting the legal definition of a religion. Humanism is, for all intents, the refusal of religious icons as inspiring the concepts of right and wrong in favor of humans themselves embodying such concepts. Just look at how atheists have influenced our social policies over the past 40 years.
#9 - Corporate Power is Protected
Okay, several points on this one:
- Corporate welfare (bailing out bankrupt corporations, subsidies, etc.)
- Immunity to Constitutional provisions (freedom of speech/privacy)
- Deregulation of industries (lowering safety and other expectations)
- Tax breaks of shipping jobs overseas
- Ignoring of anti-trust and monopolistic action laws (wanna go to Walmart anyone?)
No doubt there is more, but I am getting tired here.
#10 - Labor Power is Suppressed
Herein lies our dearly departed unions ... and any rights we had as corporate employees. (Walmart again, anyone?)
#11 - Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Okay, one side of this is obvious, the other, well, almost as obvious. On one hand we have multiple professors and teachers loosing their jobs or getting arrested for politically incorrect views and on the other we have "art" that insults the meaning of the word, entering into the realm of total obscenity in many cases while true, meaningful art languishes near death for funding.
#12 - Obsession with Crime and Punishment
How long have our politicians cried out every election "I'm tougher on crime than my opponent is!" Our jails and prisons are bursting at the seams and our leaders are all-too-ready to put more in them.
#13 - Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Don't get me started on this one, you will be reading for the next three days.
#14 - Fraudulent Elections
Want some real insights into this issue? Read Arianna Huffington's "How to Overthrow the Government" and you will learn more than you want to know, I promise you.
Most lists like this stop here, but I am going to add one more to give you something to think about.
#15 - Charismatic/Popular Leader/Dictator
When Hitler and Mussolini came to power, they did so on the backs of peasants and down-trodden citizens whom they wooed with promises of a better future under their "benign" rule. I think this is the only thing missing before the United States becomes totally fascist.
From here, I leave you to think about all this, but first, I shall give you some sources for additional information.
First, Old American Century is the source of the original list I used in writing this blog entry. They have many links to support articles and information. I highly recommend them.
And second, a wonderful article from CommonDreams.org, The Rise of Fascism in America
And lastly, The Dawning of Fascism in America, an article from SpiritOne.com.
As our good Lord said more than once, "He that hath ears, let him hear."
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Barnes Business College
The (non)Education That Keeps on Giving.
Over 20 years ago I made several major mistakes.
One was getting into trouble with the law, a mistake I am paying for to this day because so many potential employers slam the door in your face if you have ever had a felony conviction.
Another was signing up to attend Barnes Business College which is now defunct. Ironic, a business college that went bankrupt. I don't even bother to tell most people I ever went there out of sheer embarrassment.
Anyway, when I signed up for Barnes I was given many sweet-sounding promises. Full accreditation that would be transferrable to higher schools. To sum it up, a pack of salesman lies. I was just out of high school and was very naive. I started classes okay, but then I met a young lady with whom I ended up in serious legal trouble.
About half way through my training at Barnes, I was arrested and held in jail for almost six months. When I was released on probation, I was told by my probation officer that I would not be allowed out of my house past nine at night for the first six months of my probation unless it was for work. No sleep-overs at a friends, no nightclubs or concerts, and no night school until after the six months was over.
I finished the six months of intensive supervision totally without incident. The day after it was over and I was finally on regular probation, I contacted Barnes Business College to get back into classes as soon as possible. That was when I was given the bad news.
Because I had been out of classes for more than six months, Barnes Business College had closed out my contract with them, supposedly giving a refund of the unused tuition back to the bank. The problem with that was they also claimed I owed them close to $1,000 that I would have to pay before they would even talk about me getting back into classes. In addition, I would have to pay the new tuition rates that had increased by 20-25% just days before I called them.
So, here I was, unemployed and unable to complete my education to get a decent paying job in the first place. Over the years, my student loan with the bank sat collecting interest because of my inability to pay.
Finally last year the bank turned the loan over to the Department of Education and I began receiving collection calls, first from a company called Windham. I tried repeatedly to explain that by this time I was on total disability and was receiving only SSI as income. They kept insisting that I would have to pay at least 20% of the loan before we could even talk about rehabilitating the loan. By that time, 20% was like $2,000. No way in hell I had that kind of money and being on SSI there wasn't any bank that would lend me the money. After about two months, they finally took some information from me about my disability and told me I would hear from the Department of Education shortly about possibly getting the loan discharged due to my disability. That was like nine months ago.
Finally, I get a call from a new collection agency called Progressive starting the whole collection process over again last week. This time they started claiming they could seize my SSI payments if I didn't start paying at least 1/6th of my income to them immediately. Understand that on SSI the payment is currently $623 a month. 1/6th of that would be equal to half my food budget for the month. Because of my income and assumed expenses, food stamps would only give me $32 a month, even with me paying over $100 a month on my student loan. I went round and round with the collector for almost a half-hour over the phone about this, trying to get him to see reason to no avail. He insisted that I would have to make such payments for at least 9 months before I could even apply for a hardship consideration. Reluctantly I told him, before hanging up, that I would see what I could do.
Then I called the Department of Education.
I was informed that I would have to fill out a form to request discharge of the loan based on total and permanent disability and was told it would be 10 to 14 days before the form would arrive. Once the form was in (after being signed by my doctor) then it would be reviewed by them for approval. Never mind the fact I have been receiving SSI for the past four years after going through hell to prove I was disabled in the first place, they want confirmation from my doctor. Even then, it would only be a tenative discharge. The final discharge could take up to three years to finally be approved, during which time, as I understand it, they would monitor my disability to see if I improved enough to go back to work.
In the meantime, any tax returns I might be eligible to receive would be confiscated by them. Fine, let 'em. Maybe they will get an idea of how little I have been earning each year for the past twenty years because of this. Hard to pay $80-100 a month when you are earning minimum wage because you have a half-finished, worthless education.
Anyway, to top it all off, I discover that they can not take my SSI payments. Seems the Department of Education representatives and collectors need a lesson in Federal law. According to 31 CFR 285.4(2)(b), SSI payments are exempt from seizure. Section 285.4 is entitled 'Offset of Federal benefit payments to collect past-due, legally enforceable nontax debt' and describes various provisions and definitions that regulate what Federal benefits departments like the Department of Education can seize to pay things like defaulted student loans. The relevant portion reads:
There are two interesting points here. One is that SSI payments are not included in the definition of a seizable Federal benefit payment. The second is, even if it were, then the limitation requirement would come into play. Guess what. SSI payments are less than the limitation amount in the first place and would thus not be touchable anyway.
Federal bureaucrats would do well to educate themselves on what the laws that apply to their activities actually say. Perhaps it would make them look less like heartless bastards.
One was getting into trouble with the law, a mistake I am paying for to this day because so many potential employers slam the door in your face if you have ever had a felony conviction.
Another was signing up to attend Barnes Business College which is now defunct. Ironic, a business college that went bankrupt. I don't even bother to tell most people I ever went there out of sheer embarrassment.
Anyway, when I signed up for Barnes I was given many sweet-sounding promises. Full accreditation that would be transferrable to higher schools. To sum it up, a pack of salesman lies. I was just out of high school and was very naive. I started classes okay, but then I met a young lady with whom I ended up in serious legal trouble.
About half way through my training at Barnes, I was arrested and held in jail for almost six months. When I was released on probation, I was told by my probation officer that I would not be allowed out of my house past nine at night for the first six months of my probation unless it was for work. No sleep-overs at a friends, no nightclubs or concerts, and no night school until after the six months was over.
I finished the six months of intensive supervision totally without incident. The day after it was over and I was finally on regular probation, I contacted Barnes Business College to get back into classes as soon as possible. That was when I was given the bad news.
Because I had been out of classes for more than six months, Barnes Business College had closed out my contract with them, supposedly giving a refund of the unused tuition back to the bank. The problem with that was they also claimed I owed them close to $1,000 that I would have to pay before they would even talk about me getting back into classes. In addition, I would have to pay the new tuition rates that had increased by 20-25% just days before I called them.
So, here I was, unemployed and unable to complete my education to get a decent paying job in the first place. Over the years, my student loan with the bank sat collecting interest because of my inability to pay.
Finally last year the bank turned the loan over to the Department of Education and I began receiving collection calls, first from a company called Windham. I tried repeatedly to explain that by this time I was on total disability and was receiving only SSI as income. They kept insisting that I would have to pay at least 20% of the loan before we could even talk about rehabilitating the loan. By that time, 20% was like $2,000. No way in hell I had that kind of money and being on SSI there wasn't any bank that would lend me the money. After about two months, they finally took some information from me about my disability and told me I would hear from the Department of Education shortly about possibly getting the loan discharged due to my disability. That was like nine months ago.
Finally, I get a call from a new collection agency called Progressive starting the whole collection process over again last week. This time they started claiming they could seize my SSI payments if I didn't start paying at least 1/6th of my income to them immediately. Understand that on SSI the payment is currently $623 a month. 1/6th of that would be equal to half my food budget for the month. Because of my income and assumed expenses, food stamps would only give me $32 a month, even with me paying over $100 a month on my student loan. I went round and round with the collector for almost a half-hour over the phone about this, trying to get him to see reason to no avail. He insisted that I would have to make such payments for at least 9 months before I could even apply for a hardship consideration. Reluctantly I told him, before hanging up, that I would see what I could do.
Then I called the Department of Education.
I was informed that I would have to fill out a form to request discharge of the loan based on total and permanent disability and was told it would be 10 to 14 days before the form would arrive. Once the form was in (after being signed by my doctor) then it would be reviewed by them for approval. Never mind the fact I have been receiving SSI for the past four years after going through hell to prove I was disabled in the first place, they want confirmation from my doctor. Even then, it would only be a tenative discharge. The final discharge could take up to three years to finally be approved, during which time, as I understand it, they would monitor my disability to see if I improved enough to go back to work.
In the meantime, any tax returns I might be eligible to receive would be confiscated by them. Fine, let 'em. Maybe they will get an idea of how little I have been earning each year for the past twenty years because of this. Hard to pay $80-100 a month when you are earning minimum wage because you have a half-finished, worthless education.
Anyway, to top it all off, I discover that they can not take my SSI payments. Seems the Department of Education representatives and collectors need a lesson in Federal law. According to 31 CFR 285.4(2)(b), SSI payments are exempt from seizure. Section 285.4 is entitled 'Offset of Federal benefit payments to collect past-due, legally enforceable nontax debt' and describes various provisions and definitions that regulate what Federal benefits departments like the Department of Education can seize to pay things like defaulted student loans. The relevant portion reads:
Covered benefit payment means a Federal benefit payment payable to an individual under the Social Security Act (other than SSI payments), part B of the Black Lung Benefits Act, or any law administered by the Railroad Retirement Board (other than payments that such Board determines to be tier 2 benefits). The amount of the covered benefit payment payable to a debtor for purposes of this section will be the amount after reduction or deduction required under the laws authorizing the program. Reductions to recover benefit overpayments are excluded from the covered benefit payment when calculating amounts available for offset.
There are two interesting points here. One is that SSI payments are not included in the definition of a seizable Federal benefit payment. The second is, even if it were, then the limitation requirement would come into play. Guess what. SSI payments are less than the limitation amount in the first place and would thus not be touchable anyway.
Federal bureaucrats would do well to educate themselves on what the laws that apply to their activities actually say. Perhaps it would make them look less like heartless bastards.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Power of a Single Man
Sometimes one man with courage is a majority.
Andrew Jackson
Talking with people yesterday on the buses about House Wyldstar and the Social Policy Center blog, I was asked if I really think my efforts will make a difference.
In truth, I do not know. My late aunt once told me that the true purpose of a warrior is not victory or conquest, but to struggle against adversity so that the people might survive. It is the struggle that is important. If man never attempts to prove himself worthy and to preserve the rights, liberties and freedom for himself and others, he condemns himself and those around him to mediocrity and slavery.
Until recently, I have lived a life of mediocrity as a common wage slave, travelling through time without a cause, a career, or discernible direction. But no longer.
Over the years I have experienced many things; mental illness, disability, imprisonment, homelessness, poverty, discrimination - they have all become a part of me, an epiphany if you will ... and given me an unexpected direction to my life. I can no longer sit by the sidelines and watch as our society slowly crumbles. I can no longer turn a blind eye to those I once thought beneath my attentions. I can no longer remain silent as our nation forgets the price of true liberty.
Will I make a difference? Perhaps, if I can educate people about the issues and needs of our society, get them to see and talk about what can be done to address them, and (if I am lucky) to inspire them to action. Some say this makes me a politician. Personally, I hate that title because of the social ineptitude associated with it today. I would rather think that it makes me a teacher. Perhaps one of the most important kind of teachers; one that gets his students to honestly and intelligently think for themselves.
Please understand, I do not pretend to be an expert on anything. I am an ordinary citizen. But I try to open my mind to see how each issue is linked to the others and how these interrelated issues affect each other. You can blame my world history teacher in high school, Mrs. Rowland, for that. She taught me to never look at an event or situation as isolated, but to look around it at the environment and the previous events that led up to the event or situation. By doing so, one gains more insight into the event or situation and can more readily see or design a response to it.
Can a single man make a difference?
With courage and an open mind, eager to find solutions to our problems, I believe he can.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Need a Band-Aid?
Today I strike against common sense. Common sense in that this idea is common to most Americans and, at face value, it seems to make sense.
What is it? The idea that if our governments (any level, take your pick) are showing a surplus at any given time, it should be given back to the tax payers immediately.
Seven years ago, when Clinton left office, our federal government was showing a financial surplus on its annual budget. It was a surplus that, I my opinion, should have gone to paying off some of our national debt.
Instead, the republicans swiftly realigned our budget to put us back on course for national bankruptcy in the near future. The surplus that should have paid off some of our national debt was instead given away as a tax cut that only helped the richest members of our society.
Why is this a problem, you ask? Simple. When our nation goes bankrupt in the next few years, the richest members of our society will simply hide in their gated- and armed guard-protected communities to ride out its aftermath. This leaves, guess who, outside to clean up the mess they have caused by their profiteering and outright greed.
The rich try to make it look like they are concerned for the welfare of the homeless, disabled, etc, etc. Yet percentage-wise, they give the least amount of income to programs to address the social needs of these populations. The same can be said for the government itself, which spends most of its money to guarantee that you and I will remain loyal little wage slaves, oblivious to the impending disaster, until it is too late.
This is the same thing that the Roman empire did during its last days. Back then they held daily circuses and gave away bread in a bid to convince the people that nothing was wrong. It worked. At least it did until Rome was burned by barbarian hordes. By then, of course, it was too late.
Is it too late for the United States? Only time will tell for certain, but I don't think we should wait to find out.
What is it? The idea that if our governments (any level, take your pick) are showing a surplus at any given time, it should be given back to the tax payers immediately.
Seven years ago, when Clinton left office, our federal government was showing a financial surplus on its annual budget. It was a surplus that, I my opinion, should have gone to paying off some of our national debt.
Instead, the republicans swiftly realigned our budget to put us back on course for national bankruptcy in the near future. The surplus that should have paid off some of our national debt was instead given away as a tax cut that only helped the richest members of our society.
Why is this a problem, you ask? Simple. When our nation goes bankrupt in the next few years, the richest members of our society will simply hide in their gated- and armed guard-protected communities to ride out its aftermath. This leaves, guess who, outside to clean up the mess they have caused by their profiteering and outright greed.
The rich try to make it look like they are concerned for the welfare of the homeless, disabled, etc, etc. Yet percentage-wise, they give the least amount of income to programs to address the social needs of these populations. The same can be said for the government itself, which spends most of its money to guarantee that you and I will remain loyal little wage slaves, oblivious to the impending disaster, until it is too late.
This is the same thing that the Roman empire did during its last days. Back then they held daily circuses and gave away bread in a bid to convince the people that nothing was wrong. It worked. At least it did until Rome was burned by barbarian hordes. By then, of course, it was too late.
Is it too late for the United States? Only time will tell for certain, but I don't think we should wait to find out.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Crazy Policies Harm Communities
Today I would like to talk about a very controversial issue, our crumbling disease management policies.
Recently our news headlines burned into our memory the story of a tuberculosis patient who travelled by plane to Europe, exposing dozens of people to what was thought to be a deadly, drug-resistant form of tuberculosis. The public screamed about the irresponsibility of this act and rightly so. But let me remind you that another deadly disease is being spread without notice - AIDS/HIV.
Twenty years ago the existence of this disease became public knowledge, thought at the time to be only a homosexual community problem. Over the years, it quickly spread into the heterosexual community via the bisexual and drug-users community. It is a disease that can take a decade or more to blossom to its full lethal potential, once someone is infected.
Unlike the flu or common cold, the ways this illness is spread relates directly to human actions-blood transfusion (now rare) or body fluid exposure, the use of injected drugs with unsterilized equipment, and sexual contact. Years ago, outbreaks of infectious diseases were met with prompt public and governmental action. In many cases, it still is.
But when it comes to AIDS/HIV, our response has been dismal. Out of fear of stigmatizing individuals who are exposed, usually because of unsafe conduct on their part, we respond to the diagnosis as if it were nothing more serious than a common cold.
This lack of prompt, appropriate response has allowed this disease to get completely out of hand. It is currently estimated that 40 million people worldwide have this disease and many of them do not know it!!!
When this disease was first identified, our officials followed procedure and began tracking down those who might have been cross-infected by exposure to the diagnosed patient. Privacy advocates screamed about this saying it violated the patient's right to privacy, completely ignoring the right of those exposed to a deadly disease to know about it and perhaps prevent them from exposing others unwittingly.
This change in policy has hamstrung our efforts to get control over this disease for the past twenty years, leading to ten or twenty times as many people being exposed and sentenced to death.
Understand, I am a strong supporter for the right to privacy. However, when the right to privacy endangers the lives of others, that is where the right to privacy ends.
This is especially important when we consider the prospects of a pandemic outbreak.
With the "bird" flu showing signs of nearing the avian/human infection crossing, we should be strengthening our disease monitoring, treatment, and reporting. This reporting cannot be just to state and federal authorities. It must include anyone who may have been exposed to the disease in question so that they can seek treatment or change their activities to limit or eliminate exposing others.
We held this position regarding Mr Tuberculosis. We already have plans to hold this position when faced with a global pandemic. We should and must take this position regarding our response to AIDS/HIV as well.
Recently our news headlines burned into our memory the story of a tuberculosis patient who travelled by plane to Europe, exposing dozens of people to what was thought to be a deadly, drug-resistant form of tuberculosis. The public screamed about the irresponsibility of this act and rightly so. But let me remind you that another deadly disease is being spread without notice - AIDS/HIV.
Twenty years ago the existence of this disease became public knowledge, thought at the time to be only a homosexual community problem. Over the years, it quickly spread into the heterosexual community via the bisexual and drug-users community. It is a disease that can take a decade or more to blossom to its full lethal potential, once someone is infected.
Unlike the flu or common cold, the ways this illness is spread relates directly to human actions-blood transfusion (now rare) or body fluid exposure, the use of injected drugs with unsterilized equipment, and sexual contact. Years ago, outbreaks of infectious diseases were met with prompt public and governmental action. In many cases, it still is.
But when it comes to AIDS/HIV, our response has been dismal. Out of fear of stigmatizing individuals who are exposed, usually because of unsafe conduct on their part, we respond to the diagnosis as if it were nothing more serious than a common cold.
This lack of prompt, appropriate response has allowed this disease to get completely out of hand. It is currently estimated that 40 million people worldwide have this disease and many of them do not know it!!!
When this disease was first identified, our officials followed procedure and began tracking down those who might have been cross-infected by exposure to the diagnosed patient. Privacy advocates screamed about this saying it violated the patient's right to privacy, completely ignoring the right of those exposed to a deadly disease to know about it and perhaps prevent them from exposing others unwittingly.
This change in policy has hamstrung our efforts to get control over this disease for the past twenty years, leading to ten or twenty times as many people being exposed and sentenced to death.
Understand, I am a strong supporter for the right to privacy. However, when the right to privacy endangers the lives of others, that is where the right to privacy ends.
This is especially important when we consider the prospects of a pandemic outbreak.
With the "bird" flu showing signs of nearing the avian/human infection crossing, we should be strengthening our disease monitoring, treatment, and reporting. This reporting cannot be just to state and federal authorities. It must include anyone who may have been exposed to the disease in question so that they can seek treatment or change their activities to limit or eliminate exposing others.
We held this position regarding Mr Tuberculosis. We already have plans to hold this position when faced with a global pandemic. We should and must take this position regarding our response to AIDS/HIV as well.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Six Years Later
Well, here we are at the sixth anniversary of the World Trade Center attack. Have we learned anything?
I am not talking about our bumbling national security guards and intelligence agencies. I am talking about you and I as Americans.
We as Americans can no longer take for granted that we are safe at home. The foreign terrorists effectively confirmed that. But I wonder, are we any safer now?
The USA Patriot Act was passed shortly after the attack, on the premise that it would make us safer in the United States, but has it?
It is slowly coming to light just how far the USA Patriot Act has damaged civil and constitutional rights in the United States. Three years ago a federal judge ruled the portion forbidding giving expert advice and assistance to groups designated as international terrorist organizations unconstitutional, ruling it impermissibly vague and violating the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Other provisions should also be declared unconstitutional.
One provision is the so-called 'sneak and peek' or 'delayed notification' searches of American households. Under this provision, government officials may enter your home or business without a search warrant and take anything they 'think' might incriminate you. All you know is you come home or enter your business later and find the place broken into and stuff missing. For weeks, months or even years you may think you were simply robbed. This was supposedly changed in the Patriot Act reauthorization recently to require the government to give you notice within 30 days, but with the opportunity for two 30-day extensions with the showing of good cause.
Another provision requires bookstores and libraries to make your viewing habits available to them upon request (ie without a court warrant) and forbids them from telling you the information was accessed. The reauthorization supposedly removed the automatic application of the gag order.
Under provisions of the USA Patriot Act, peace activists, social change advocates, members of the American Islamic society and even political opponents of sitting officials have found themselves denied the right to travel by commercial airliner because they have been included in the federal 'no-fly' list.
I am reminded of an old warning:
Have we forfeited the essential liberty of ourselves and our children? Only time will tell, I just pray we do not find out too late.
Anyone care for a yellow star or black triangle?
I am not talking about our bumbling national security guards and intelligence agencies. I am talking about you and I as Americans.
We as Americans can no longer take for granted that we are safe at home. The foreign terrorists effectively confirmed that. But I wonder, are we any safer now?
The USA Patriot Act was passed shortly after the attack, on the premise that it would make us safer in the United States, but has it?
It is slowly coming to light just how far the USA Patriot Act has damaged civil and constitutional rights in the United States. Three years ago a federal judge ruled the portion forbidding giving expert advice and assistance to groups designated as international terrorist organizations unconstitutional, ruling it impermissibly vague and violating the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Other provisions should also be declared unconstitutional.
One provision is the so-called 'sneak and peek' or 'delayed notification' searches of American households. Under this provision, government officials may enter your home or business without a search warrant and take anything they 'think' might incriminate you. All you know is you come home or enter your business later and find the place broken into and stuff missing. For weeks, months or even years you may think you were simply robbed. This was supposedly changed in the Patriot Act reauthorization recently to require the government to give you notice within 30 days, but with the opportunity for two 30-day extensions with the showing of good cause.
Another provision requires bookstores and libraries to make your viewing habits available to them upon request (ie without a court warrant) and forbids them from telling you the information was accessed. The reauthorization supposedly removed the automatic application of the gag order.
Under provisions of the USA Patriot Act, peace activists, social change advocates, members of the American Islamic society and even political opponents of sitting officials have found themselves denied the right to travel by commercial airliner because they have been included in the federal 'no-fly' list.
I am reminded of an old warning:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor SafetyBenjamin Franklin
Have we forfeited the essential liberty of ourselves and our children? Only time will tell, I just pray we do not find out too late.
Anyone care for a yellow star or black triangle?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Colony Collapse - A Crisis In The Making
We have almost all heard it in the news, bee populations are on the decline worldwide. Doesn't sound important, does it? I mean aside from higher honey prices and future supply reduction, what's the problem?
The problem is, our domestic honey bees are our primary pollinator of crops and fruits. Less or no bees means a stark reduction in crop production worldwide. This at a time when our production levels are already under threat from drought and desertification effects from global warming.
This scarily reminds me of the warning in the Book of Revelations (last book of the Christian Bible for those who are non-Christian readers) where it tells of extraordinary prices for food stocks in the future.
This does not bode well for anyone on Earth. The less we can rely on our food stocks, the greater the chance for internal and international turmoil as more and more of our population goes hungry.
Fundamentally, this is a serious national security issue! And it is a condition that has been building for a long time. As we become increasingly dependent on limited areas of our country to provide the bulk of our food stock, any loss of production in those areas ripple through our entire economy. Case in point, the price of oranges and orange juice over the past few months, caused by the devastating hurricanes in Florida two years ago that damaged most of the crop producing trees.
I am not the only one noticing this potentially devastating pattern. Infoshop News has an article on the subject at the moment (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070901185325837).
The question is, what can we do about it?
First, we need research to learn what is killing off our bee populations and other pollinators. If we are doing it ourselves with toxins or something, we need to know so we can stop it. If the treat to them is biological, we must find a cure, quickly.
Second, we need to diversify our crops. The true number of food crops worldwide number in the hundreds, if not thousands, yet we rely on about 30 or 40 for the bulk of our diet. Organizations like Seeds of Diversity (Canada - http://www.seeds.ca/en.php) need to be encouraged and learned from. We constantly talk about cultural diversity when we need to be more interested in maintaining genetic diversity in our plants, animals, and food stocks.
Third, we need to decentralize our crop production. Currently several areas of the country are under biological quarantine which prevents crops being trucked into, out of, or through those areas. Each community across the nation once had crop farms surrounding them and providing them with food. Over the years, these have either been sold to make way for urban sprawl development or purchased and consolidated by the mega-agricultural corporations. This decentralized food supply needs to be re-established as soon as possible with urban sprawl encroachment slowed, if not stopped altogether.
These changes will not be easy and without a doubt will be resisted by the mega-agricultural corporations, but if we are going to maintain a sustainable, thriving society, it must be done, and soon.
The problem is, our domestic honey bees are our primary pollinator of crops and fruits. Less or no bees means a stark reduction in crop production worldwide. This at a time when our production levels are already under threat from drought and desertification effects from global warming.
This scarily reminds me of the warning in the Book of Revelations (last book of the Christian Bible for those who are non-Christian readers) where it tells of extraordinary prices for food stocks in the future.
This does not bode well for anyone on Earth. The less we can rely on our food stocks, the greater the chance for internal and international turmoil as more and more of our population goes hungry.
Fundamentally, this is a serious national security issue! And it is a condition that has been building for a long time. As we become increasingly dependent on limited areas of our country to provide the bulk of our food stock, any loss of production in those areas ripple through our entire economy. Case in point, the price of oranges and orange juice over the past few months, caused by the devastating hurricanes in Florida two years ago that damaged most of the crop producing trees.
I am not the only one noticing this potentially devastating pattern. Infoshop News has an article on the subject at the moment (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070901185325837).
The question is, what can we do about it?
First, we need research to learn what is killing off our bee populations and other pollinators. If we are doing it ourselves with toxins or something, we need to know so we can stop it. If the treat to them is biological, we must find a cure, quickly.
Second, we need to diversify our crops. The true number of food crops worldwide number in the hundreds, if not thousands, yet we rely on about 30 or 40 for the bulk of our diet. Organizations like Seeds of Diversity (Canada - http://www.seeds.ca/en.php) need to be encouraged and learned from. We constantly talk about cultural diversity when we need to be more interested in maintaining genetic diversity in our plants, animals, and food stocks.
Third, we need to decentralize our crop production. Currently several areas of the country are under biological quarantine which prevents crops being trucked into, out of, or through those areas. Each community across the nation once had crop farms surrounding them and providing them with food. Over the years, these have either been sold to make way for urban sprawl development or purchased and consolidated by the mega-agricultural corporations. This decentralized food supply needs to be re-established as soon as possible with urban sprawl encroachment slowed, if not stopped altogether.
These changes will not be easy and without a doubt will be resisted by the mega-agricultural corporations, but if we are going to maintain a sustainable, thriving society, it must be done, and soon.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Days of Future Past - Remembering the Fallen
May you live in interesting times.
Chinese curse
Until six years ago, I never really understood that curse. We are approaching the sixth anniversary of the day that changed America, forever.
I finally had a chance to see the movie "World Trade Center" and could not keep back the tears remembering that day.
I was helping my niece, Jasmine, get ready for school that morning. The morning cartoons she was watching as she ate her breakfast were interrupted by the news of the first plane hitting the towers. Moments after they went live, the second plane hit, sending flames and debris into the morning sky over New York City. My niece looked confused and turned.
"Uncle James, what happened?"
All I could do, in the shocked state I was in at the time, was say that something very bad had just happened. To this day, I still do not know how to adequately explain to a child about that day.
Looking back in my mind while watching the movie, I wonder if we as a nation have learned anything. I, for one, have taken many lessons from this horrible, historic event.
First, Americans are capable of so much more than we are doing now for each other. During the events of September 11th, 2001, people rallied together to help dig survivors out of the wreckage, heal those who were wounded, donate much needed blood, and comfort those who lost loved ones in this unforgivable attack.
Second, it made me realize that we as Americans can never take our safety and freedom for granted. It is something that must be fought for and protected with our very lives if our children are to know what it is.
Third, it made me realize that we must continue the struggle against oppression and fascism which is still very much alive in our world. Where there are men and forces that would work to harm and intimidate mankind into slavish obedience to any philosophy or religious dogma, we must be ready to oppose it with deadly resolve.
The attack against the World Trade Center was an act of war, undeclared and cowardly, no different than another attack that happened over 60 years ago. Perhaps you have heard of a place called Pearl Harbor? If not, ask your grandparents.
During the Civil War, there were almost 500,000 deaths. During the First World War, over 100,000. During the Second World War, over 400,000. During the Korean Conflict (America's forgotten war), over 50,000. During Vietnam, over 90,000. During the Gulf War, a mere 2,000.
Now in Iraq and Afghanistan, so many in our nation are screaming over the deaths of just over 3,000 over the past three years. Have we forgotten how many have died before to secure and encourage freedom around the world?
Don't get me wrong. I hate war. I wish we as a race could come up with better ways to handle our conflicts. It is unfortunate that the tree of freedom must still be watered with the blood of brave warriors. I agree with Eve Mirriam when she spoke of one day having a child who would ask her "What was war?" But as John Stewart Mill said:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
We as Americans must remember these words, least we loose our resolve to maintain the freedoms that we have so richly enjoyed. If we do, our children's futures will be poorer for it. Personally, I struggle not for myself, but for my niece and my nephews. I hope that one day they can take their children to a museum where our guns, bombs and machines of war will be displayed the same way that instruments of torture and archaic weapons are now. I hope they look upon them with startled amazement that such devices could ever have been used. I pray they look up at their parents and ask.
What was war?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Terminator Strikes Hard Against Key Health Care
News out of California!
Governor crushes programs to help homeless mentally ill and to help consumers save on prescription medications!
In a heartless move befitting his movie role as the mechanized 'terminator' from the future, Governor Schwarzenegger cut a $55 million program that has helped thousands of mentally ill citizens return to mainstream society and a $6 million program to require drug manufacturers to discount many prescription medications for citizens in need.
This is blatant short-sightedness at its worst. Instead of spending around $60 million in preventive medicine now, the Governor has chosen to spend at least two or three times more in other service areas in the near future in unnecessary hospitalizations, jail costs and loss of productivity in these extremely vulnerable populations. Politicians repeatedly cut critical services like these to 'save money' without thinking about the consequences of their actions.
This is the kind of stupid decisions that our politicians and leaders are making everyday lately. And yes, I know full well that these are fighting words. Bring it on, Terminator!
When will our politicians realize that preventing health problems is MUCH cheaper than reacting to them after the fact? THIS is why our health care programs cost two or three times more than anywhere else in the world, with only minor differences in the quality of care marginalized citizens receive. I like Arnold as an actor, but I give him an F on this one.
Governor crushes programs to help homeless mentally ill and to help consumers save on prescription medications!
In a heartless move befitting his movie role as the mechanized 'terminator' from the future, Governor Schwarzenegger cut a $55 million program that has helped thousands of mentally ill citizens return to mainstream society and a $6 million program to require drug manufacturers to discount many prescription medications for citizens in need.
This is blatant short-sightedness at its worst. Instead of spending around $60 million in preventive medicine now, the Governor has chosen to spend at least two or three times more in other service areas in the near future in unnecessary hospitalizations, jail costs and loss of productivity in these extremely vulnerable populations. Politicians repeatedly cut critical services like these to 'save money' without thinking about the consequences of their actions.
This is the kind of stupid decisions that our politicians and leaders are making everyday lately. And yes, I know full well that these are fighting words. Bring it on, Terminator!
When will our politicians realize that preventing health problems is MUCH cheaper than reacting to them after the fact? THIS is why our health care programs cost two or three times more than anywhere else in the world, with only minor differences in the quality of care marginalized citizens receive. I like Arnold as an actor, but I give him an F on this one.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Eviction of a Criminal
The news this week has unfolded the story of an illegal immigrant who was finally apprehended and deported to Tijuana, Mexico. The problem? An 8-year-old child left behind in the U.S. in the care of a church pastor and his wife.
For some time, Elvira Arellano has hidden behind the sanctuary of the church to avoid being deported as an illegal immigrant. If she had stayed in the church, she might still be there, but she came out trying to speak publicly for the right of all illegal immigrants to stay in the United States without fear of deportation, particularly if they have had the good fortune of giving birth to a child in the United States.
What is wrong with this picture?
Everyday fathers and mothers are arrested, jailed and even imprisoned for criminal activities, often with their children ending up either in the care of other family members or of the foster care program. Why should illegal immigrants be treated any differently? Because their 'punishment' for their crime is deportation instead of imprisonment? I think not.
The fact is an illegal immigrant is one who has violated American law by entering our country without permission. They have commited a crime and simply having a baby does NOT exonerate them for that. They are STILL subject to arrest and punishment for their crime. All-in-all, they get off lucky. In many countries entering without official permission carries the penalty of lengthy imprisonment in rat-infested hell-holes or even summary execution.
It is unfortunate that the illegal immigrants put children into the middle of this, but we do not let criminals out of punishment just because they have kids. If we did, most of our prison population would still be on the streets, unpunished for their crimes.
The only way to eliminate situations like this, if illegal immigrants continue to insist on putting themselves and their children into them, is to completely do away with our immigration limitations, throw open our borders, and risk anyone and everyone entering our country from Mexico, potentially including would-be terrorists, which would make us even MORE vulnerable to 9/11-type attacks.
Many advocates for the illegal immigrants (the Council on Foreign Relations, for example) try to argue that the illegal immigrants do not enter the United States because of abject poverty in Mexico, claiming that Mexico has a robust and thriving economy of its own. But they also claim that people migrate to where there is greater development. Excuse me? If Mexico's economy is so robust and thriving, why are there thousands of women and children scrounging in the city dumps, looking for anything and everything that might be of any value to sell or living in make-shift structures that do not meet even the basic qualifications to be called a home?
Their response to that is a claim that it is because Mexico does not have a viable mortgage industry. Again, this proves my point. Mortgage lenders tend not to invest in impoverished areas, even within the United States. If Mexico's economy is so great, why have banking companies not extended their mortgage businesses there?
It takes people within their own country and communities to build hope for the future. Siphoning capital from other regions is NOT a long-term answer. The illegal immigrants would do better working in their own country to fight corruption and make sure the funds and resources that ARE in Mexico are used more wisely and effectively. We routinely grant scholarships to students from countries like Ethiopia and Bangladesh to educate them on how to develop their own countries, with an increasing level of success. Yet Mexico still lags behind, despite the significant amount of foreign aid, tourism income, business investments, trade payments, and personal earnings of illegal immigrants being transferred to their country from the United States.
Could there be a problem with this picture?
For some time, Elvira Arellano has hidden behind the sanctuary of the church to avoid being deported as an illegal immigrant. If she had stayed in the church, she might still be there, but she came out trying to speak publicly for the right of all illegal immigrants to stay in the United States without fear of deportation, particularly if they have had the good fortune of giving birth to a child in the United States.
What is wrong with this picture?
Everyday fathers and mothers are arrested, jailed and even imprisoned for criminal activities, often with their children ending up either in the care of other family members or of the foster care program. Why should illegal immigrants be treated any differently? Because their 'punishment' for their crime is deportation instead of imprisonment? I think not.
The fact is an illegal immigrant is one who has violated American law by entering our country without permission. They have commited a crime and simply having a baby does NOT exonerate them for that. They are STILL subject to arrest and punishment for their crime. All-in-all, they get off lucky. In many countries entering without official permission carries the penalty of lengthy imprisonment in rat-infested hell-holes or even summary execution.
It is unfortunate that the illegal immigrants put children into the middle of this, but we do not let criminals out of punishment just because they have kids. If we did, most of our prison population would still be on the streets, unpunished for their crimes.
The only way to eliminate situations like this, if illegal immigrants continue to insist on putting themselves and their children into them, is to completely do away with our immigration limitations, throw open our borders, and risk anyone and everyone entering our country from Mexico, potentially including would-be terrorists, which would make us even MORE vulnerable to 9/11-type attacks.
Many advocates for the illegal immigrants (the Council on Foreign Relations, for example) try to argue that the illegal immigrants do not enter the United States because of abject poverty in Mexico, claiming that Mexico has a robust and thriving economy of its own. But they also claim that people migrate to where there is greater development. Excuse me? If Mexico's economy is so robust and thriving, why are there thousands of women and children scrounging in the city dumps, looking for anything and everything that might be of any value to sell or living in make-shift structures that do not meet even the basic qualifications to be called a home?
Their response to that is a claim that it is because Mexico does not have a viable mortgage industry. Again, this proves my point. Mortgage lenders tend not to invest in impoverished areas, even within the United States. If Mexico's economy is so great, why have banking companies not extended their mortgage businesses there?
It takes people within their own country and communities to build hope for the future. Siphoning capital from other regions is NOT a long-term answer. The illegal immigrants would do better working in their own country to fight corruption and make sure the funds and resources that ARE in Mexico are used more wisely and effectively. We routinely grant scholarships to students from countries like Ethiopia and Bangladesh to educate them on how to develop their own countries, with an increasing level of success. Yet Mexico still lags behind, despite the significant amount of foreign aid, tourism income, business investments, trade payments, and personal earnings of illegal immigrants being transferred to their country from the United States.
Could there be a problem with this picture?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Alice in Wonderland
Okay, so I didn't win the lottery last night.
What I did do is some research on today's topic, the narrow-minded thinking of our politicians, businesses and society in general.
I call this article 'Alice in Wonderland' because it is about the Alice in Wonderland Syndrome, also known as micropsia. The condition is one where the brain processes the senses like sight and sound oddly, making things seem further away than they really are. For those suffering from it, it can be very dangerous. Imagine trying to cross the street, thinking a car you see is a block away, and it is really just a few yards away. This is very much how our society views our current crises like our economy and environment.
Case in point -
Flatpanel displays, currently used extensively in the computer industry, were invented by an AMERICAN inventor. When he tried to get American computer companies interested in the idea, he met with the proverbial stone wall. Only then did he approach Japanese companies with the invention and was welcomed with open arms and enthusiasm. The net result? American companies all but lost out on the notebook computer and flatpanel monitor industry with literally millions of dollars going instead to Japanese manufacturing companies. Believe me, the executives who turned down the idea have been kicking themselves in the pants ever since.
Another point is more personal.
I originally got involved with computers in the early to mid-eighties as a teenager. When I tried to further pursue the industry, my father discouraged me from it, having been personally convinced that microcomputers were a fad that would never catch on. As a result of his discouragement, I left computers behind for many years, losing out on being a part of the wildfire industry that ensued. I have, for the past ten years, been playing catch-up on the computer industry and my computer skills. Because of my father's narrow-mindedness, I all but lost out on a great career.
My point is this: Because of narrow-minded resistance and out-and-out opposition to developing projects and ideas and selfish, self-serving mentalities, America is losing its competitive advantage.
The United States was once THE producer of the finest automobiles in the world, lost to Japan and Italy because the automakers in America didn't like the idea of building more efficient and powerful automobiles. The net result? Entire communities that are decades later struggling economically because of the loss of jobs.
The United States was once THE producer of high-quality electronics, lost to Japan and Germany again through the rejection of new ideas and inventions. Again, communities that once thrived on the industry have been decimated by its loss.
Now we are loosing our information technologies leadership through rejection of new ideas and corporate greed taking good paying IT jobs to third world nations where pay rates are pennies-on-the-dollar by comparison. Have our politicians and businessmen learned nothing?
Our politicians and businessmen try to defend themselves by pointing out that the United States has, to date, been able to bounce back by developing new, emerging technologies and industries, but as things progress this is becoming more and more difficult, particularly when U.S. companies seem hostile to any idea or invention that they did not personally come up with.
This is narrow-mindedness at its worst, and America is paying for the foolishness of our leaders. Truly proof that we as a nation are suffering from the worst form of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome.
What I did do is some research on today's topic, the narrow-minded thinking of our politicians, businesses and society in general.
I call this article 'Alice in Wonderland' because it is about the Alice in Wonderland Syndrome, also known as micropsia. The condition is one where the brain processes the senses like sight and sound oddly, making things seem further away than they really are. For those suffering from it, it can be very dangerous. Imagine trying to cross the street, thinking a car you see is a block away, and it is really just a few yards away. This is very much how our society views our current crises like our economy and environment.
Case in point -
Flatpanel displays, currently used extensively in the computer industry, were invented by an AMERICAN inventor. When he tried to get American computer companies interested in the idea, he met with the proverbial stone wall. Only then did he approach Japanese companies with the invention and was welcomed with open arms and enthusiasm. The net result? American companies all but lost out on the notebook computer and flatpanel monitor industry with literally millions of dollars going instead to Japanese manufacturing companies. Believe me, the executives who turned down the idea have been kicking themselves in the pants ever since.
Another point is more personal.
I originally got involved with computers in the early to mid-eighties as a teenager. When I tried to further pursue the industry, my father discouraged me from it, having been personally convinced that microcomputers were a fad that would never catch on. As a result of his discouragement, I left computers behind for many years, losing out on being a part of the wildfire industry that ensued. I have, for the past ten years, been playing catch-up on the computer industry and my computer skills. Because of my father's narrow-mindedness, I all but lost out on a great career.
My point is this: Because of narrow-minded resistance and out-and-out opposition to developing projects and ideas and selfish, self-serving mentalities, America is losing its competitive advantage.
The United States was once THE producer of the finest automobiles in the world, lost to Japan and Italy because the automakers in America didn't like the idea of building more efficient and powerful automobiles. The net result? Entire communities that are decades later struggling economically because of the loss of jobs.
The United States was once THE producer of high-quality electronics, lost to Japan and Germany again through the rejection of new ideas and inventions. Again, communities that once thrived on the industry have been decimated by its loss.
Now we are loosing our information technologies leadership through rejection of new ideas and corporate greed taking good paying IT jobs to third world nations where pay rates are pennies-on-the-dollar by comparison. Have our politicians and businessmen learned nothing?
Our politicians and businessmen try to defend themselves by pointing out that the United States has, to date, been able to bounce back by developing new, emerging technologies and industries, but as things progress this is becoming more and more difficult, particularly when U.S. companies seem hostile to any idea or invention that they did not personally come up with.
This is narrow-mindedness at its worst, and America is paying for the foolishness of our leaders. Truly proof that we as a nation are suffering from the worst form of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)