Am I just an old fart or do I just not get the world I live in? Wells Fargo agreed to pay a fine of 2 billion dollars (that's $2 million thousand if I have my zeros right) for wrongdoing that contributed to our last economic disaster. Then I learned that Citibank paid a similar fine of 6 billion and then I learned that Bank of America paid over a 16 billion dollar fine.
I cannot conceive how any company can sustain paying a 2 billion dollar fine and continue to conduct business as usual.
How many people were affected by this wrong doing? Why can't the fines be large enough to pay each family hurt something substantial? How can these companies be allowed to continue to conduct the same kind of business?
Business as usual. The rich keep getting richer on the backs of the working. When will we wise up?
Thursday, August 2, 2018
Friday, August 4, 2017
How to Survive the Nature of Being Good-Natured
One of my employees who is a very good-natured fellow got a call at work recently from his aunt asking him to come home and help her with something. Now "Joe" would do anything to help anyone without question (especially friends and family). He seemed somewhat stressed out about the call and when I asked if everything was alright he talked quite a bit about how his aunt could take care of it herself but never does, and how lonely she is, and how she needs to find more friends and call her other family , etc. . In short, he made up every reason he could think of to excuse her for asking him (again) to do what she could do herself. Subconsciously he did this so he would not feel badly for being exasperated about her call. After all........he really loves to help others out!
I know the feeling well. I consider myself to be a fairly good-natured guy and I too thrive on the good feelings one gets from being helpful. The problem is that some people tend to lean on others to the extent that they become dependent on it. Good-natured folks can be so easily taken advantage of that it becomes easy for others to ask, and when one "thrives" on helping out, it is easy to say yes whenever asked. This is not healthy for anyone. It leads to unconscious resentment. When the person doing their best to help out starts feeling resentful for being asked (so much!) they will often become angry at their friends, family and themselves! Not fun or good-natured people to be around at this point. Of course this is not what anyone intends.
When I discovered this about myself I learned that I had to get past the irrational anger and self-loathing. I first decided that it was okay to be a generally helpful person. In fact; I wish more people were more helpful. Next I decided that I wanted to live my life with people taking advantage of my good nature but not abusing it. Simple! Right? I have actually found it quite easy to tell people that "I want you to take advantage of my good nature but please don't abuse it". I don't usually do this unless I start to feel a little abused. At that point I can either speak up or allow the abuse. This is very important: If I allow someone to abuse my good nature I have made that choice myself and I cannot resent them for it!. I can certainly be a bit angry with myself if I truly feel I have done too much, but then again; my choice. I can really feel good about it if I choose. Positive empowerment.
stw
I know the feeling well. I consider myself to be a fairly good-natured guy and I too thrive on the good feelings one gets from being helpful. The problem is that some people tend to lean on others to the extent that they become dependent on it. Good-natured folks can be so easily taken advantage of that it becomes easy for others to ask, and when one "thrives" on helping out, it is easy to say yes whenever asked. This is not healthy for anyone. It leads to unconscious resentment. When the person doing their best to help out starts feeling resentful for being asked (so much!) they will often become angry at their friends, family and themselves! Not fun or good-natured people to be around at this point. Of course this is not what anyone intends.
When I discovered this about myself I learned that I had to get past the irrational anger and self-loathing. I first decided that it was okay to be a generally helpful person. In fact; I wish more people were more helpful. Next I decided that I wanted to live my life with people taking advantage of my good nature but not abusing it. Simple! Right? I have actually found it quite easy to tell people that "I want you to take advantage of my good nature but please don't abuse it". I don't usually do this unless I start to feel a little abused. At that point I can either speak up or allow the abuse. This is very important: If I allow someone to abuse my good nature I have made that choice myself and I cannot resent them for it!. I can certainly be a bit angry with myself if I truly feel I have done too much, but then again; my choice. I can really feel good about it if I choose. Positive empowerment.
stw
Friday, April 5, 2013
My mind has changed about guns!
Okay, some things have changed since I last wrote anything about guns. Specifically, but not limited to: Sandyhook and Aurora. Before these two incidents I was wavering about my personal need to own a gun. At the time I came to the conclusion that the reason I did not want a gun was because I just couldn't see the end game. I could not conceive the idea that I would have to shoot someone to protect what was mine or who I cared about and the eventual escalation of firepower would result in one king and lots of bodies.
That has changed.
James Holmes (Aurora Theater shooter) and Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) had many things in common, not the least of which they were both paranoid schizophrenics. This means they both had a mental disease that made them.....let's just say crazy. Of course let us not forget they also both used semiautomatic weapons to kill lots of innocent people. The wake of these two incidents has emboldened the proponents for both more and less gun control.
It is easy to understand why some people would line up to get rid of as many guns as possible: Guns are designed and manufactured to kill. I find it much more difficult to wrap my head around why these events would make anyone feel we needed less restrictions on guns. True, if every administrator at the Sandy Hook school and every patron of the Aurora Theater was packing a weapon these events may not have been as tragic. Surely if the sheer knowledge that everyone was caring their own personal protection wasn't enough to intimidate these two madmen from their quests, then as soon as they started shooting someone (presumably a good marksman, trained to use the adrenalin coursing though their bodies to react with measured restraint and accuracy) would have stopped them in their tracks and fewer people possibly would have been killed and injured. So is that the sensible answer? Should everyone carry a gun at all times? Is that really what the writers of the Constitution had in mind: that everyone should carry a handgun, own an (or lots of) assault rifle and have enough ammo on hand to kill thousands of deer (or people)?
The utter irrationality of this makes me wonder............why do people like guns so much that they will cloud their minds to the point of such absurdity? I've read everything from "it is part of our culture" to "when someone threatens to take something away it becomes more valuable". There are a million reasons given to the question. The most popular is for personal protection. So most gun owners are paranoid. They want to be ready for the bad guy that will eventually be coming to get them, their family or their stuff. Very few gun enthusiasts; however, will admit that they like the idea of killing someone. After all: killing is wrong...........right?
I was taught from an early age: two wrongs never make a right, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, it takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight than to fight one, and sticks and stone may break your bones but names can never hurt me. These are the things that morality is based on. So in order to sidestep the immorality of killing (a bad guy), there must be something else that makes some people love owning and shooting lots of guns. Perhaps it has to do with something as simple and basic as pushing a button or pulling a trigger here and making something happen over there. The first time a powederman pushes a plunger he gets a big thrill blowing up something a mile away. After he does it enough the rush is gone. It becomes routine. Isn't it the same with guns? Does the initial thrill of pulling a trigger and making a bottle explode or a can jump at 30 yards wear off with repetition? Does the childhood owner of a Daisy BB air rifle need to get a .22, then a 12 gauge, then an AR-15 then two or three more? Are guns just another opiate of the masses?
People who fear the government will take their guns, take over their lives, and make everyone subservient to a dictatorial leadership are simply paranoid. When paranoia and addiction are combined, mental stability cannot be maintained for long.
I don't and will not own a gun because I am not crazy. I'm not saying that everyone who owns a gun is crazy but with the morals and convictions I believe in: I would have to be crazy to to believe that shooting someone and having those convictions can coexist.
That has changed.
James Holmes (Aurora Theater shooter) and Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) had many things in common, not the least of which they were both paranoid schizophrenics. This means they both had a mental disease that made them.....let's just say crazy. Of course let us not forget they also both used semiautomatic weapons to kill lots of innocent people. The wake of these two incidents has emboldened the proponents for both more and less gun control.
It is easy to understand why some people would line up to get rid of as many guns as possible: Guns are designed and manufactured to kill. I find it much more difficult to wrap my head around why these events would make anyone feel we needed less restrictions on guns. True, if every administrator at the Sandy Hook school and every patron of the Aurora Theater was packing a weapon these events may not have been as tragic. Surely if the sheer knowledge that everyone was caring their own personal protection wasn't enough to intimidate these two madmen from their quests, then as soon as they started shooting someone (presumably a good marksman, trained to use the adrenalin coursing though their bodies to react with measured restraint and accuracy) would have stopped them in their tracks and fewer people possibly would have been killed and injured. So is that the sensible answer? Should everyone carry a gun at all times? Is that really what the writers of the Constitution had in mind: that everyone should carry a handgun, own an (or lots of) assault rifle and have enough ammo on hand to kill thousands of deer (or people)?
The utter irrationality of this makes me wonder............why do people like guns so much that they will cloud their minds to the point of such absurdity? I've read everything from "it is part of our culture" to "when someone threatens to take something away it becomes more valuable". There are a million reasons given to the question. The most popular is for personal protection. So most gun owners are paranoid. They want to be ready for the bad guy that will eventually be coming to get them, their family or their stuff. Very few gun enthusiasts; however, will admit that they like the idea of killing someone. After all: killing is wrong...........right?
I was taught from an early age: two wrongs never make a right, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, it takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight than to fight one, and sticks and stone may break your bones but names can never hurt me. These are the things that morality is based on. So in order to sidestep the immorality of killing (a bad guy), there must be something else that makes some people love owning and shooting lots of guns. Perhaps it has to do with something as simple and basic as pushing a button or pulling a trigger here and making something happen over there. The first time a powederman pushes a plunger he gets a big thrill blowing up something a mile away. After he does it enough the rush is gone. It becomes routine. Isn't it the same with guns? Does the initial thrill of pulling a trigger and making a bottle explode or a can jump at 30 yards wear off with repetition? Does the childhood owner of a Daisy BB air rifle need to get a .22, then a 12 gauge, then an AR-15 then two or three more? Are guns just another opiate of the masses?
People who fear the government will take their guns, take over their lives, and make everyone subservient to a dictatorial leadership are simply paranoid. When paranoia and addiction are combined, mental stability cannot be maintained for long.
I don't and will not own a gun because I am not crazy. I'm not saying that everyone who owns a gun is crazy but with the morals and convictions I believe in: I would have to be crazy to to believe that shooting someone and having those convictions can coexist.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Ten facts about the deficit that you won't hear Rush, Sean, Neal, Herman, Glenn or the GOP talk about
1. The deficit is actually shrinking.
2. The deficit grew under George W. Bush.
3. The deficit has grown in the last four years mostly due to the recession.
4. The stimuous cost much less than Bush's wars and tax cuts.
5. Investors are now paying us to borrow money.
6. Investors aren't running away. They are buying Treasury Bonds.
7. The Health Care Reform Act reduces the deficit.
8. The US is borrowing much less from Foreign countries now than before the recession.
9. We are spending 20% of the budget on defense.
10. We are spending 21% of the budget on healthcare.
2. The deficit grew under George W. Bush.
3. The deficit has grown in the last four years mostly due to the recession.
4. The stimuous cost much less than Bush's wars and tax cuts.
5. Investors are now paying us to borrow money.
6. Investors aren't running away. They are buying Treasury Bonds.
7. The Health Care Reform Act reduces the deficit.
8. The US is borrowing much less from Foreign countries now than before the recession.
9. We are spending 20% of the budget on defense.
10. We are spending 21% of the budget on healthcare.
I'm not looking but it's ok because I believe...
Why don't people open their eyes? Why do many people believe the loudest voice on the TV or radio? Why are the same mistakes made as history is ignored? There must be profit in it for someone. Not me; of course, I am in the lower half of the "middle class". One thing that President Obama, Mitt Romney, George Will, and most other national politicos have in common is that they are so out of touch they cannot conceive how much of a luxury going out for a $5 McDonald's lunch is for me. To realize evidence of this it is only necessary to listen to many who say that this or that government program or tax hurts small business people. Of course, the term "small business" includes many businesses that routinely trade over a million dollars. Of course; to them, I could be making $200,000 a year and still be considered "middle class". To me a small business is the mom and pop bookstore on 3rd street that has half a dozen employees. Most people don't think to ask what is meant by "small business" or "middle class" because they are too busy believing in someone or some philosophy.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that we can have the society we have without government regulation and by reducing taxes on those who can afford them most. I know it doesn't seem fair that Warren Buffet should have to pay a higher percentage of his money in taxes than me, but the aforementioned hamburger costs us both the same. If my taxes are a larger percentage of my available income (for food) than his, it affects me more. If we both routinely buy the $5 hamburger, I don't get to buy new shoes this year and he still gets to buy a new Rolls Royce. Many "middle class" people cannot afford new shoes at all.
The belief function of the brain and the thinking part of the brain are separate. You can't do both at the same time. This is a big part of the problem. When people start believing in someone or something they stop thinking. Remember that when your candidate of choice says something will hurt or help small businesses or the middle class: they cannot relate to what a small business or middle income level is to you and me.
Please people: stop believing and start thinking.
.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that we can have the society we have without government regulation and by reducing taxes on those who can afford them most. I know it doesn't seem fair that Warren Buffet should have to pay a higher percentage of his money in taxes than me, but the aforementioned hamburger costs us both the same. If my taxes are a larger percentage of my available income (for food) than his, it affects me more. If we both routinely buy the $5 hamburger, I don't get to buy new shoes this year and he still gets to buy a new Rolls Royce. Many "middle class" people cannot afford new shoes at all.
The belief function of the brain and the thinking part of the brain are separate. You can't do both at the same time. This is a big part of the problem. When people start believing in someone or something they stop thinking. Remember that when your candidate of choice says something will hurt or help small businesses or the middle class: they cannot relate to what a small business or middle income level is to you and me.
Please people: stop believing and start thinking.
.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Mom baked cookies
My mom loved everybody. Personal space be damned; mom was a hugger. Everybody knew my mom's smile and hugs and of course: her cookies.
Mom was a professional woman. She had a 4 year college degree and was a registered nurse. She only worked as a nurse when she needed to. She was always a full-time mother and housewife. I guess you could say she was liberated because she was free to do what she wanted; and what she wanted was to raise her boys and take care of her household. She loved housework. My mother ironed our tee shirts just for the joy of doing it! She also had dinner on the table promptly at 5:30 each night. Somewhere in there she found time to bake. Apple pie and strawberry shortcake were seasonal delights but brownies and cookies were regulars.
When my bothers and I grew up and moved away, mom retired from nursing and did volunteer work at Northside and North Fulton Hospital. She never let on to them that she was a nurse. This way she could care for people (the way she loved) in an environment she knew well, without any pressure. With a home that didn't have three growing boys and their friends constantly messing it up, and with a whole lot less laundry to do, mom baked more. She settled on sugar cookies.
Now Mom wasn't the greatest baker in the World. She did cook with a whole lot of love and it came through even when the edges were a bit brown and the texture somewhat overly crunchy (hard as rocks). Of course, Mom firmly believed a cold glass of milk could fix any miscalculation in baking times. The fact is: she didn't pay a whole lot of attention to baking times and everything got baked at 350 degrees.
I'm not really sure where the sugar cookie recipe Mom used came from. When I was small and insecure Mom's form of therapy involved teaching me to bake brownies or chocolate chip cookies which she never used a written recipe for (I think that this is why she never baked bread). The improvisational method of baking has it's successes and failures but I never remember a bad batch of brownies. Until later in life though sugar cookies were reserved for Chirstmas cutout cookies. Between having to wait for the dough to chill, adding lots of food coloring and decorating with colored nonpareils, sugar cookies were a major production to be eagerly anticipated. Still never a recipe. Sometimes they were hard and sometimes the green Christmas trees looked like they had the blight, but they were always tasty. When she "retired" and sugar cookies became a weekly thing for Mom she actually wrote down her recipe and Dad sent it in to a magazine contest which she won. Even after that I don't think she ever referred to her own recipe. It was this, that and a pinch of something else. Chill the dough, cut them out (simple rounds now) throw them in a 350 degree oven for awhile. Nothing fancy, but they filled the cookie jar.
That cookie jar never stayed full though. If you visited Mom and Dad's the cookie jar came off the fridge and you had a cookie. Most likely you left with a bag of cookies. The mailman got cookies. The UPS man left with cookies. The flower delivery person (Dad loved to send Mom flowers as often as he could afford to) left with cookies. The preacher and every neighbor knew my Mom's sugar cookies. She did venture out once in awhile and try molasses cookies (my Grandmother's specialty) ginger snaps, or snickerdoodles. But she always came back to sugar cookies and everybody got them.
When my mom died peacefully in her sleep we had to decide upon a vessel of some sort to put her ashes in for the memorial/interment service. Even though we thought it might raise a few eyebrows, there was really only one thing we could use: her cookie jar. At the funeral when the pall was removed and there sat Mom's earthly remains inside her cookie jar, there was not a murmur, chuckle or any little old ladies gasping to be heard. There were a whole bunch of smiles though. Everyone knew Mom baked cookies.
Now Mom wasn't the greatest baker in the World. She did cook with a whole lot of love and it came through even when the edges were a bit brown and the texture somewhat overly crunchy (hard as rocks). Of course, Mom firmly believed a cold glass of milk could fix any miscalculation in baking times. The fact is: she didn't pay a whole lot of attention to baking times and everything got baked at 350 degrees.
I'm not really sure where the sugar cookie recipe Mom used came from. When I was small and insecure Mom's form of therapy involved teaching me to bake brownies or chocolate chip cookies which she never used a written recipe for (I think that this is why she never baked bread). The improvisational method of baking has it's successes and failures but I never remember a bad batch of brownies. Until later in life though sugar cookies were reserved for Chirstmas cutout cookies. Between having to wait for the dough to chill, adding lots of food coloring and decorating with colored nonpareils, sugar cookies were a major production to be eagerly anticipated. Still never a recipe. Sometimes they were hard and sometimes the green Christmas trees looked like they had the blight, but they were always tasty. When she "retired" and sugar cookies became a weekly thing for Mom she actually wrote down her recipe and Dad sent it in to a magazine contest which she won. Even after that I don't think she ever referred to her own recipe. It was this, that and a pinch of something else. Chill the dough, cut them out (simple rounds now) throw them in a 350 degree oven for awhile. Nothing fancy, but they filled the cookie jar.
That cookie jar never stayed full though. If you visited Mom and Dad's the cookie jar came off the fridge and you had a cookie. Most likely you left with a bag of cookies. The mailman got cookies. The UPS man left with cookies. The flower delivery person (Dad loved to send Mom flowers as often as he could afford to) left with cookies. The preacher and every neighbor knew my Mom's sugar cookies. She did venture out once in awhile and try molasses cookies (my Grandmother's specialty) ginger snaps, or snickerdoodles. But she always came back to sugar cookies and everybody got them.
When my mom died peacefully in her sleep we had to decide upon a vessel of some sort to put her ashes in for the memorial/interment service. Even though we thought it might raise a few eyebrows, there was really only one thing we could use: her cookie jar. At the funeral when the pall was removed and there sat Mom's earthly remains inside her cookie jar, there was not a murmur, chuckle or any little old ladies gasping to be heard. There were a whole bunch of smiles though. Everyone knew Mom baked cookies.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Really stupid stuff..........
As I read the paper today I came across (as I often do) several items in the news that are just plain stupid.
Now stupid is word I use lightly (it would be stupid not to do so). It was one of those words I taught my kids to never use; however, the experience of my advanced age has convinced me that stupidity does exist and should be discussed with the hope of eliminating some of it from the World.
I have decided; therefore, to create a list of things I find really stupid and explain why I feel that way (as time allows).
The list so far:
The Chik-fil-a controversy.
The uproar about where the USA Olympic uniforms were made.
The "need" to personally own assault weapons and justify it Constitutionally.
People who support the "right to life" yet are also warmongers.
Trickle down theory.
Long drawn out trials for people whose guilt is not in doubt.
The amount of money spent on elections.
"the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.
President Obama agreeing to kill a US citizen (terrorist) abroad rather then bring him back to the US for trial.
The criminalization of teenagers for possession of alcohol at 18.
Please feel free to add to my list. Please don't load me up with things you just don't like. I don't like black-eyed peas but they really are not stupid in anyway. Remember: this is my list and my opinion. Don't take it personally. If you disagree, tell me why. You just might teach me something.
stw
Now stupid is word I use lightly (it would be stupid not to do so). It was one of those words I taught my kids to never use; however, the experience of my advanced age has convinced me that stupidity does exist and should be discussed with the hope of eliminating some of it from the World.
I have decided; therefore, to create a list of things I find really stupid and explain why I feel that way (as time allows).
The list so far:
The Chik-fil-a controversy.
The uproar about where the USA Olympic uniforms were made.
The "need" to personally own assault weapons and justify it Constitutionally.
People who support the "right to life" yet are also warmongers.
Trickle down theory.
Long drawn out trials for people whose guilt is not in doubt.
The amount of money spent on elections.
"the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.
President Obama agreeing to kill a US citizen (terrorist) abroad rather then bring him back to the US for trial.
The criminalization of teenagers for possession of alcohol at 18.
Please feel free to add to my list. Please don't load me up with things you just don't like. I don't like black-eyed peas but they really are not stupid in anyway. Remember: this is my list and my opinion. Don't take it personally. If you disagree, tell me why. You just might teach me something.
stw
Liberative conservial
Political parties aside, according to Webster's: a conservative is one who adheres to traditional methods or views. Nowhere does it mention that a conservative is ante-liberal. Additionally, according to Webster's: a liberal is one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways. Again, no mention that a liberal is ante-conservative. The irony of course is that the one word (traditional) common to both definitions is the thing that is in most opposition to the meaning of these two nouns. Untie that one philosophy majors!
I've often described myself as either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal anyone could meet. I really don't like either characterization because the truth is I am one on some issues but the other on different subjects. Is it really necessary to be one or the other? I think this is what hangs up our government more than anything else. Politicians seem to feel the need to be either liberal or conservative.....PERIOD! And somewhere along the way someone seems to have decided that in order to be a Democrat you must be a liberal and in order to be a Republican you must be a conservative. I won't pretend to be a history scholar here but if studied it is interesting how these two parties came about in the United States and the ideas that brought them about.
The Universe has allot of black, white, and yes, grey in it. Perhaps things would work better if we all accepted that fact. I know this is idealistic talk and I admit having a pair of rose colored glasses. I just believe that every one's opinion is valid. An opinion is just that. There are some truths but most of what divides the state of the World is only right or wrong according to one's point of view. What gets me the most is how often a person's point of view is guided by someone who has no real credibility. Most radio show hosts and TV personalities fall into this category (another great subject to wax poetically about sometime!). If you only listen to those who you agree with then where does the opportunity to grow come from? I suggest that one should listen to and open the possibility to learn from those we don't agree with. I doubt anyone will change my mind about Rush Limbaugh being a loud mouthed, uncaring, rich actor who loves to hear his own voice; however, if I listen to him once in awhile, I will hear him say something outrageous that causes me to investigate something a bit more and I might just learn something I didn't know or gain an understanding I didn't have previously. One example: a local politician (who I don't particularly like for a number of reasons) was recently involved in a forum with his opposition (from the same party). When the candidates were asked about major issues facing the state, his opposition mentioned education, tax reform and ethics reform. Mr. Incumbent replied: "If we don't elect Mitt Romney as President we will be saddled with Obamacare. If Obamacare stays in place, instead of 1.7 million Georgians on Medicare we will have 2.5 million." Now the singularity of the answer was enough to enrage me, but it made me want to learn a bit more about Medicare, and how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect it. I learned allot after about 10 minutes worth of research. What I learned: Medicare costs allot. Medicare provides allot of medical care for pennies on the dollar, whereas companies like AEtna provide the same level of care for multiple dollars. The population of the United States is aging and there will be many more people in need of help to provide the health care they will need as they age.
A close acquaintance of mine is retiring soon. He has worked hard for 60 years. He falls into the so-called "doughnut hole" where coverage stops because his pension and Social Security will pay him just enough to keep him above the Federal Poverty level. He will not be able to afford the medicine he and his wife need to keep them alive. The PPaACA will close this gap. Yes we will have to pay for it. And yes, I believe that the 1-2% of the people in this country who made their money off the hard work and backs of people like my friend should pay higher taxes to help pay for it.
My point is this: Be liberal and learn something new. Be conservative and make decisions carefully with traditions and history in mind. You can do both. It is quite alright to lean one way or the other (the news media should be liberal and banks should be conservative) but don't be opposed to growing and changing by examining a different point of view.
stw-----Do your very best to be better than humanly possible and not be selfish.
I've often described myself as either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal anyone could meet. I really don't like either characterization because the truth is I am one on some issues but the other on different subjects. Is it really necessary to be one or the other? I think this is what hangs up our government more than anything else. Politicians seem to feel the need to be either liberal or conservative.....PERIOD! And somewhere along the way someone seems to have decided that in order to be a Democrat you must be a liberal and in order to be a Republican you must be a conservative. I won't pretend to be a history scholar here but if studied it is interesting how these two parties came about in the United States and the ideas that brought them about.
The Universe has allot of black, white, and yes, grey in it. Perhaps things would work better if we all accepted that fact. I know this is idealistic talk and I admit having a pair of rose colored glasses. I just believe that every one's opinion is valid. An opinion is just that. There are some truths but most of what divides the state of the World is only right or wrong according to one's point of view. What gets me the most is how often a person's point of view is guided by someone who has no real credibility. Most radio show hosts and TV personalities fall into this category (another great subject to wax poetically about sometime!). If you only listen to those who you agree with then where does the opportunity to grow come from? I suggest that one should listen to and open the possibility to learn from those we don't agree with. I doubt anyone will change my mind about Rush Limbaugh being a loud mouthed, uncaring, rich actor who loves to hear his own voice; however, if I listen to him once in awhile, I will hear him say something outrageous that causes me to investigate something a bit more and I might just learn something I didn't know or gain an understanding I didn't have previously. One example: a local politician (who I don't particularly like for a number of reasons) was recently involved in a forum with his opposition (from the same party). When the candidates were asked about major issues facing the state, his opposition mentioned education, tax reform and ethics reform. Mr. Incumbent replied: "If we don't elect Mitt Romney as President we will be saddled with Obamacare. If Obamacare stays in place, instead of 1.7 million Georgians on Medicare we will have 2.5 million." Now the singularity of the answer was enough to enrage me, but it made me want to learn a bit more about Medicare, and how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect it. I learned allot after about 10 minutes worth of research. What I learned: Medicare costs allot. Medicare provides allot of medical care for pennies on the dollar, whereas companies like AEtna provide the same level of care for multiple dollars. The population of the United States is aging and there will be many more people in need of help to provide the health care they will need as they age.
A close acquaintance of mine is retiring soon. He has worked hard for 60 years. He falls into the so-called "doughnut hole" where coverage stops because his pension and Social Security will pay him just enough to keep him above the Federal Poverty level. He will not be able to afford the medicine he and his wife need to keep them alive. The PPaACA will close this gap. Yes we will have to pay for it. And yes, I believe that the 1-2% of the people in this country who made their money off the hard work and backs of people like my friend should pay higher taxes to help pay for it.
My point is this: Be liberal and learn something new. Be conservative and make decisions carefully with traditions and history in mind. You can do both. It is quite alright to lean one way or the other (the news media should be liberal and banks should be conservative) but don't be opposed to growing and changing by examining a different point of view.
stw-----Do your very best to be better than humanly possible and not be selfish.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Help! Healthcare Hell!
What a mess! First of all let me say I hate the term "Obamacare"; and not just because it was coined by that actor guy named Limbaugh. The healthcare plan President Obama tried to get through Congress and the plan Congress passed are very different. What the President attempted would have really changed things (good or bad) and what we got is a bit of a water downed mess that won't change the big picture dramatically. Doctors, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, and mostly lobbyists will still make plenty of money, the upper 1-2% of Americans will get the greatest healthcare available in the World and the rest of us will pay allot for healthcare coverage. Don't misunderstand me here: I like what has passed. It is better than what was in place before. My premiums have gone up but I have known for three years they would. And I still pay very little for excellent coverage. Thanks to the new provisions: I didn't have to pay a dime for a routine colonoscopy, my wife gets a free mammogram, my children who are out of school and under the age limit are still on my policy, and family members with pre-existing conditions cannot be turned down for coverage. I know it is not a perfect solution but for Mr. Average Middle Class the changes have and will be good.
Perhaps at some point I will wax on the idea of socialized medicine. I think there are good things and bad things about it, but a good exploration will need more time than I have right now. I do think that is is unfortunate that because of the inclusion of the term (social-) many people will not consider anything that they think is linked to communism.
So healthcare reform is constantly being linked to partisan politics. If what we presently have is linked with President Obama and the Democrats, what is the Republican plan? Mitt Romney supported about the same thing in Massachusetts but now has changed his mind (OK by me to change your mind if it is done for thoughtful, principled reasons rather than cynical, political ones). What is Mitt's plan? He hasn't said. When a FOX reporter asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to describe his party's (R) plan to replace "Obamacare" (ugh!) he said that first the GOP had to repeal Obamacare. When asked the simple question two more times McConnell continued to refuse to offer any plan. He just kept saying that the GOP (not Congress mind you) must first repeal Obamacare. The most powerful man in the Republican party will not speak about a specific alternative healthcare plan. Of course this is the same politician that said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” This powerful Congressional leader (remember Congress? supposed to by our lawmakers and overseers of the common good) cares more about dumping his political opposition then passing any meaning good legislation. And you wonder why I don't like politicians and especially the GOP right now.
The only way to get any good done for the common man is to be open to ideas. No matter who comes up with them or what words they contain. Listen. Debate the points not the ideology.
Perhaps at some point I will wax on the idea of socialized medicine. I think there are good things and bad things about it, but a good exploration will need more time than I have right now. I do think that is is unfortunate that because of the inclusion of the term (social-) many people will not consider anything that they think is linked to communism.
So healthcare reform is constantly being linked to partisan politics. If what we presently have is linked with President Obama and the Democrats, what is the Republican plan? Mitt Romney supported about the same thing in Massachusetts but now has changed his mind (OK by me to change your mind if it is done for thoughtful, principled reasons rather than cynical, political ones). What is Mitt's plan? He hasn't said. When a FOX reporter asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to describe his party's (R) plan to replace "Obamacare" (ugh!) he said that first the GOP had to repeal Obamacare. When asked the simple question two more times McConnell continued to refuse to offer any plan. He just kept saying that the GOP (not Congress mind you) must first repeal Obamacare. The most powerful man in the Republican party will not speak about a specific alternative healthcare plan. Of course this is the same politician that said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” This powerful Congressional leader (remember Congress? supposed to by our lawmakers and overseers of the common good) cares more about dumping his political opposition then passing any meaning good legislation. And you wonder why I don't like politicians and especially the GOP right now.
The only way to get any good done for the common man is to be open to ideas. No matter who comes up with them or what words they contain. Listen. Debate the points not the ideology.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Now that my muse has kicked me in the...................
Since my muse has visited me and I hope will be around for awhile, I decided publish some stuff I wrote but never got around to complete or post. The following is something I wrote 3 years ago and for whatever ever reason never shared it. Needless to say, there has been much water under the bridge since I wrote this. I promise to revisit the subject with today's view.
OPTIMISM IN A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY
OPTIMISM IN A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY
What do capitalism, communism, free enterprise, and socialism all have in common? Well they all suck in their own ways, and if you talk about them you might just as well stand on a busy street corner and shout “abortion!” over and over. I think some of the worst parts of each are endemic to humans. Free enterprise and capitalism are disastrous without regulation. Communism and Socialism deny individual rights and lead to fascism. History proves that each system fosters greed. You can, however, have common good and the individual right to make a profit.
I’m like mostly everybody else in many ways. I am concerned with people losing jobs, not having healthcare, not having enough money to pay all the bills, etc...
Add to that a worry about war, the possible threat of terrorist attack at anytime, and a flu or chicken plague,,,,, hey! There is much to be concerned about. I am also like most other people in that I worry about me; me and my family; how I will get by and provide for them. Is this selfish? Yes, but since I am human (and I think this is the common flaw) it is how I relate to everything.
I read through the President’s economic stimulus plan and wondered how it would affect me. I’m not sure it will. Don’t get me wrong…….I trust President Obama and his financial advisors because I am optimistic and haven’t been thrilled with our government in many, many years. I am very hopeful that this plan will help the Economy in general and therefore eventually make my life a bit easier, more enjoyable, or at least a bit less laden with stress. I just hope so.
In order for me to figure out how this latest economic stimulus plan will help me I must look at how the present economy is affecting me. Basically this is my situation: I think I am pretty typical middle class. I am a government worker (job pretty secure for now) with good health insurance, retirement plan and fifteen years of loyalty (both me to them and them to me). I am about to have 3 kids in college, and my wife works at home. I have a mortgage, a cell phone, 2 dogs, 2 cats and more consumer debt than I would like. Does any of this sound familiar? I hope so, because I think I am pretty typical. I have a second job, and I am barely making ends meet. I have it good.
Really! My life could fracture at any time for a number of reasons but why focus on what if? I am paying my obligations…….all of them. I am feeding my family. I have no car payments. I occasionally take my wife out for dinner or to see a show.
The biggest problem I see that many people have right now is consumer debt. I have many friends whose stories go like this: One day "Bob's" bank and one of his credit card companies fail to agree on the paying/posting date of a bill. Of course, they each said that Bob needed to deal with the other about it. So what happened is that one payment got messed up and this caused all of Bob's other credit card companies to cut his credit in half, which in turn made his balances very near or at their limits, which in turn made Bob's credit score go down, which in turn made his interest rates skyrocket. Talk about a snowball effect! Many, many, many phone calls resulted in no help. Eventually (maybe in 10 more years) Bob will get everyone paid off and have mountains of available credit. But wait! No one has credit anymore…….it doesn’t exist because when the Government bailed the big banks out they still paid big salaries, big bonuses and according to CNBC bought: “curtains for $28,000, a pair of chairs for $87,000, fabric for a “Roman Shade” for $11,000, Regency chairs for $24,000, six wall sconces for $2,700, a $13,000 chandelier in the private dining room and six dining chairs for $37,000, a “custom coffee table” for $16,000, an antique commode “on legs” for $35,000, and a $1,400 “parchment waste can.” Lest I forget about the $50 million corporate jet (French made) Citicorp just bought.
The present state of the economy is directly affecting me very little. If things don’t get better or if gas prices rise again I will have a tough time. So my hope is that President Obama’s stewardship will help things improve in general and therefore I will be able to look forward to better times.
Some Republicans in Congress are worried that if money were sent out to taxpayers directly we would save it instead of spending it to stimulate the economy. Heck! When the Government sent me a stimulus check last year I paid bills with it. I didn’t save it or “spend” it on anything. I gave it to the banks just like they did. But I owed it to them. The American people owe the money grubbing banks and Wall Street firms nothing. I read the fine print and I understood what the banks backing my credit cards could do. I just really believed that would act in good faith and they haven’t. I want the Government to make the banking industry act in good faith. Most of us bear some responsibility for the place we are in but the greedy money mongers at the top (who may be losing more then anyone else but who also are feeling it the least) need to act in good faith. They can make things better simply by making it as easy for people (like me) to get in better shape just as they made it easy for us to get into trouble. Why not sacrifice some profit (profit: making anything more than what it cost you) to get the money moving again? The Government could make them do this. If Mr. “A” could afford to buy House “B” at 5% interest but not at 10% interest and Bank “C” lent money to Mr. “A” to buy House “B” (money that Bank “A” borrowed at less then 5%) then the Government should force Bank “A” to only charge 5%. In my case; as long as I am acting in good faith (I pay them every month) the interest rates on my credit cards should not be automatically raised across the board because of an error. If I showed any pattern of mistakes or missed payments then all bets could be off………I would deserve it. It doesn’t take an idiot to see that the Banks have not acted in good faith. I think the Government should step in and make sure that profit is made at no ones great expense. Regulate the amount of profit that can be made and measure profit realistically. Just because I made $100 profit this year and last year I made $125 profit doesn’t mean I lost money. I still made $100 profit.
As humans we can overcome ourselves if we will only choose to think of each other at least as much as we think about ourselves. Communism could work if not for greed, and I am sure that Capitalism can too.
Lamentations of a middleman
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am....." with all due reference to Gerry Rafferty and Stealers Wheel: I feel like I am stuck in the middle........again. Maybe it is because I was born a middle child. Well, I wasn't really born a middle child. I was born a baby; the baby in my family......the youngest. I hated being "the baby of the family". This lasted until I was thankfully given a younger brother when I was 8. So at first, I loved being in the middle. I most certainly wasn't the "baby" anymore (at 8 years old this is important for a boy). I soon learned however, that being in the middle wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
I worshiped my older brother. He is only two years older (and wiser) than me, but he has always been a larger than life, monster of a guy in my eyes. He knew everything I didn't and he knew how to manipulate the world around him to exist. He was god and I was his minion, shadow and best friend. Then one of his peer group would come around and my status instantly dropped to "tagalong" & "little butthole". Mom was always a great solace during these times of utter rejection. I didn't understand what horrible thing made me lose my older brother's love, but Mom could always distract me by saying something like "let's bake a bunch of brownies" or "come help me plant some these flowers". Thus I learned to love cooking, digging in the dirt and the wonderful power of the smile. You never get over rejection, you just learn to deal with it as part of life (humans' ability to choose,,,,,,,,another subject for another day) and go on until it rears it's ugly head again.
So Mom was always there to prop me up when life dealt me a blow. Then the new baby came along and I became the middle child. Seemingly this was great. Now I had someone to look up to me. It soon became apparent that because my younger brother was so much younger then me he needed and got the majority of Mom and Dad's attention. I understood. I had to learn self-reliance. I learned how to see and understand things from both sides and decide which way was the path of least resistance. This is both a blessing and a curse.
Where is the worse place to be in any conflict? The guy getting pummeled? No,,,,,the guy who has to step in and stop the guy whose animal instincts smell a kill. When you are in the middle you become the defacto peace maker who tends to fight for survival of the underdog. This puts you at risk for being pummeled too. To survive in the middle you understand that discretion is the better part of valor because that is all you believe you have, and it very often works.
Being in the middle means you come across as being non-committal. I do commit: just after much analysis. So am I a Democrat? Oh heck no! Idealist ideas I might have but I do keep an eye on what is,,,,,I call it reality. And unlike Will Rogers I really need organization in my life. So a Republican? I am too kindhearted and trusting. Also, I believe in looking real hard at this thing reality: shit flows downhill and the those with money have the power and the golden toilet seats at the top. There must be reason a gold toilet seat is cold. So I get pegged as being "moderate". Not really true. I have strong feelings about many things. I am not a fence sitter. Whatever the subject I stand on one side or the other. I just can usually understand why the other side feels the way they do. I like to claim that I am either the most liberal conservative in the world or the most conservative liberal in the world. I just very much hope that I am open minded.
I'm not sure whether I like being in the middle or not. It has served me pretty well. I have survived this way for a number of years. It is somewhat safe as long as you listen to both sides. I liken it to a scene in the movie "Shenandoah": the Confederate and Union armies are facing each other across a field taking a break from an obviously bloody stalemate. Just before the fight begins again, a skinny cow marches out into the field between them, oblivious to the fact that it looks like a good meal to both starving armies. All the men on both sides have a good laugh before a brave sole with a white flag rides out and chases the poor animal away. Then the reality resumes. Like the cow: the middleman has little hope of changing anyone's mind. But the middleman is almost always good for a laugh, and laughing is a good thing.
I worshiped my older brother. He is only two years older (and wiser) than me, but he has always been a larger than life, monster of a guy in my eyes. He knew everything I didn't and he knew how to manipulate the world around him to exist. He was god and I was his minion, shadow and best friend. Then one of his peer group would come around and my status instantly dropped to "tagalong" & "little butthole". Mom was always a great solace during these times of utter rejection. I didn't understand what horrible thing made me lose my older brother's love, but Mom could always distract me by saying something like "let's bake a bunch of brownies" or "come help me plant some these flowers". Thus I learned to love cooking, digging in the dirt and the wonderful power of the smile. You never get over rejection, you just learn to deal with it as part of life (humans' ability to choose,,,,,,,,another subject for another day) and go on until it rears it's ugly head again.
So Mom was always there to prop me up when life dealt me a blow. Then the new baby came along and I became the middle child. Seemingly this was great. Now I had someone to look up to me. It soon became apparent that because my younger brother was so much younger then me he needed and got the majority of Mom and Dad's attention. I understood. I had to learn self-reliance. I learned how to see and understand things from both sides and decide which way was the path of least resistance. This is both a blessing and a curse.
Where is the worse place to be in any conflict? The guy getting pummeled? No,,,,,the guy who has to step in and stop the guy whose animal instincts smell a kill. When you are in the middle you become the defacto peace maker who tends to fight for survival of the underdog. This puts you at risk for being pummeled too. To survive in the middle you understand that discretion is the better part of valor because that is all you believe you have, and it very often works.
Being in the middle means you come across as being non-committal. I do commit: just after much analysis. So am I a Democrat? Oh heck no! Idealist ideas I might have but I do keep an eye on what is,,,,,I call it reality. And unlike Will Rogers I really need organization in my life. So a Republican? I am too kindhearted and trusting. Also, I believe in looking real hard at this thing reality: shit flows downhill and the those with money have the power and the golden toilet seats at the top. There must be reason a gold toilet seat is cold. So I get pegged as being "moderate". Not really true. I have strong feelings about many things. I am not a fence sitter. Whatever the subject I stand on one side or the other. I just can usually understand why the other side feels the way they do. I like to claim that I am either the most liberal conservative in the world or the most conservative liberal in the world. I just very much hope that I am open minded.
I'm not sure whether I like being in the middle or not. It has served me pretty well. I have survived this way for a number of years. It is somewhat safe as long as you listen to both sides. I liken it to a scene in the movie "Shenandoah": the Confederate and Union armies are facing each other across a field taking a break from an obviously bloody stalemate. Just before the fight begins again, a skinny cow marches out into the field between them, oblivious to the fact that it looks like a good meal to both starving armies. All the men on both sides have a good laugh before a brave sole with a white flag rides out and chases the poor animal away. Then the reality resumes. Like the cow: the middleman has little hope of changing anyone's mind. But the middleman is almost always good for a laugh, and laughing is a good thing.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Here I am again.....
Now is the time to write! I just found two blogs I never "blogged". The ability to sit down and write has escaped me for a couple years.
Of course: now that I have discovered my blog again, I don't have time to write anything. Having two jobs is a bitch, but I know how fortunate I really am.
Of course: now that I have discovered my blog again, I don't have time to write anything. Having two jobs is a bitch, but I know how fortunate I really am.
Therapy,,,,,,,,,I need it, so I shall write again,,,,,,,soon,,,,,,I hope.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Finally a new post
A rather conservative friend of mine routinely sends me emails she receives that are generally crap forwarded a thousand times around the World spreading falsehoods. I used to fact check them and return the real facts back to people who are listed before me, but lately I just been hitting the good old delete key. She sent me this one and I couldn't stop laughing. Satire at it's best:
I received this email today. I think it is horrible that this stuff exists. Please forward this to as many people as you can so that the truth about this stuff will be known.
INCREDIBLE!
CAN YOU BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WE TRUST THE MOST TO LEAD US AND TEACH US THE TRUTH ARE ACTUALLY REALLY JUST ACTORS MAKING MONEY BECAUSE SO MANY OF US ARE SO EAGER TO BUY THE HATE THEY DISTRIBUTE?
READ WHAT SOME OF OUR “MORAL COMPASSES” HAVE HAD TO SAY WHEN THEIR MICROPHONES WERE OFF………
“the Democratic Party is a fine party and I have no problems with it…”
Sen. John McCain, April 1, 2004
“My listeners are so stupid. I could tell them Jesus was a Jew and they would hate him if I told them I did."
Sean Hannnity, September 1, 2008
“… conservative radio is the greatest drama ever made. Shakesphere would have had his own conservative radio show if the medium existed then. I’d be a liberal radio show host if the money was there, but it isn’t……conservatives are easier to herd and open their wallets quicker…..”
Rush Linbaugh, July 16, 2004
“most Conservatives aren’t interested in the truth. I love my mother but I’d tell my listeners to hate her if there was a buck in it. I’m not ashamed……That’s American free enterprise!”
Neil Boortz, May 30, 2008
“Americans are so ridiculously naïve. They get their truths from conservative and liberal radio pudits who are all just actors and wouldn’t know reality if it kicked them in the _ss. “
Dick Chenney, November 4, 2008
“Our founding fathers didn’t really have a clue. Like Stalin, I’m just in it for the money and women…..”
Glen Beck, December, 16, 2008
About the New Orleans refugees…..”they are all underprivileged anyway, so this must be working quite well for them….”
George W. Bush, September 5, 2005
We’re all humans aren’t we? Pass this along so that everyone can see that hate breeds hate and we must all learn to get along with each other. Take this to your churches and pray for unity and conservatism. Anything but communistic hatred and loathsome insecurity. My hope is that the time has not come for us to give up hope. We must take a stand for liberty and put down the oppressive liberal motorhead. Our country, this beautiful American soil is being soiled by the likes of Obamma, Biden, Pelosi and Reid. Don’t allow the immorality of the Washington crowd to wash over us. Let us breath pure white American air again so that we may crush our oppossers and put down anyone who refuses to see how right we are and how wrong they and all the other long hair, sex crazed dope smoking anarchist pinko commey fags are!
Buy that piece of prime waterfront real estate between Long island and Manhattan island but don’t pay too much for it! America needs a strong and healthy free enterprise system.
Please send this to 83 of your closest friends before noon or your big toe will fall off.
In the common vernacular of the day you have been punk’d. If you believe anything in this document you are dumber than I thought. This email is a work of satire and is intended to illustrate why you shouldn’t always believe everything you read or hear. Open your minds people and allow yourselves to grow. Only 2 of the quotes were really made (I will let you do the research and find out which 2) and them withstanding I do not attribute anything above to be the words of anyone except me.
I received this email today. I think it is horrible that this stuff exists. Please forward this to as many people as you can so that the truth about this stuff will be known.
INCREDIBLE!
CAN YOU BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WE TRUST THE MOST TO LEAD US AND TEACH US THE TRUTH ARE ACTUALLY REALLY JUST ACTORS MAKING MONEY BECAUSE SO MANY OF US ARE SO EAGER TO BUY THE HATE THEY DISTRIBUTE?
READ WHAT SOME OF OUR “MORAL COMPASSES” HAVE HAD TO SAY WHEN THEIR MICROPHONES WERE OFF………
“the Democratic Party is a fine party and I have no problems with it…”
Sen. John McCain, April 1, 2004
“My listeners are so stupid. I could tell them Jesus was a Jew and they would hate him if I told them I did."
Sean Hannnity, September 1, 2008
“… conservative radio is the greatest drama ever made. Shakesphere would have had his own conservative radio show if the medium existed then. I’d be a liberal radio show host if the money was there, but it isn’t……conservatives are easier to herd and open their wallets quicker…..”
Rush Linbaugh, July 16, 2004
“most Conservatives aren’t interested in the truth. I love my mother but I’d tell my listeners to hate her if there was a buck in it. I’m not ashamed……That’s American free enterprise!”
Neil Boortz, May 30, 2008
“Americans are so ridiculously naïve. They get their truths from conservative and liberal radio pudits who are all just actors and wouldn’t know reality if it kicked them in the _ss. “
Dick Chenney, November 4, 2008
“Our founding fathers didn’t really have a clue. Like Stalin, I’m just in it for the money and women…..”
Glen Beck, December, 16, 2008
About the New Orleans refugees…..”they are all underprivileged anyway, so this must be working quite well for them….”
George W. Bush, September 5, 2005
We’re all humans aren’t we? Pass this along so that everyone can see that hate breeds hate and we must all learn to get along with each other. Take this to your churches and pray for unity and conservatism. Anything but communistic hatred and loathsome insecurity. My hope is that the time has not come for us to give up hope. We must take a stand for liberty and put down the oppressive liberal motorhead. Our country, this beautiful American soil is being soiled by the likes of Obamma, Biden, Pelosi and Reid. Don’t allow the immorality of the Washington crowd to wash over us. Let us breath pure white American air again so that we may crush our oppossers and put down anyone who refuses to see how right we are and how wrong they and all the other long hair, sex crazed dope smoking anarchist pinko commey fags are!
Buy that piece of prime waterfront real estate between Long island and Manhattan island but don’t pay too much for it! America needs a strong and healthy free enterprise system.
Please send this to 83 of your closest friends before noon or your big toe will fall off.
In the common vernacular of the day you have been punk’d. If you believe anything in this document you are dumber than I thought. This email is a work of satire and is intended to illustrate why you shouldn’t always believe everything you read or hear. Open your minds people and allow yourselves to grow. Only 2 of the quotes were really made (I will let you do the research and find out which 2) and them withstanding I do not attribute anything above to be the words of anyone except me.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Back to the Old West
A recent shooting in my town that left 3 people dead has brought about many issues. For example: it has been suggested that if more people "strapped guns on their sides" that this tragedy could have been averted or at least the perpetrator stopped (as of this writing he is still at large). What disturbs me most about this suggestion is that it came from a police officer. Of all professions I would think a law enforcement officer would want to keep as many guns off the street as possible. He made a pretty convincing argument but the idea still scares the hell out of me.
I have considered getting a gun to protect my family. I live in a very rural county and if someone broke into my house while my wife were home alone she currently has no protection other then our 2 large, vocal dogs. The Sheriff's office is only a phone call away but the nearest Deputy might be quite far away. What would happen if really hard times hit and we have any kind of societal breakdown? What I mean by this is: suppose fuel prices skyrocket again (greedy oil companies and evil Arabs) and the grocery store shelves start getting bare. Electrical service becomes intermittent. Suppose I saw this coming and stored a year's supply of food essentials, fuel and water on my land. Next thing you know, my neighbor wants some. He comes over with his hand gun to appropriate some of my stores and I repel him with my shotgun. So he returns with a couple buddies and an assault rifle or two. OK, where does this end? Someone ends up dead. Do we really want to return to the day when he who carries the biggest gun wins all the gold? I know it is an extreme example but it could come about.
What really frightens me is that I am a pacifist, yet I am considering getting a gun. Next thing you know I will want to carry it around with me. I have had lots of training as a martial artist and tournament fighter; however, every time I began a fight the adrenalin rush was almost too much for me to control. I think that if I were in such a tense situation as having someone shooting a gun around that if I drew a weapon I'd be shaking so much I might shoot anything or anybody. I am having trouble getting past the idea that when eventually most people are walking around armed, that every argument would end up with a gun being involved. I've got an employee that I know loves guns and has a carry permit. What if I have to terminate this person someday? Should I keep a gun in my desk to protect myself? I wonder how to keep guns out of the hands of people that have no business handling them. I knew a guy who was a University Police Officer and was so paranoid he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Neither of these people are criminals but I shudder to think of what might happen if either finds a bottle of SCOPE in his mailbox someday.
I wonder if it would be much of a deterrent for criminals if more people were armed? A sign outside the door that says "I own a gun and I'm not afraid to use it" might be just as detrimental. I suppose it depends upon the type crime. A crime of opportunity is more likely to be second thought then a crime of passion.
I guess that a perfect world only the Police and the criminals would have guns and there would be enough police around to protect us all.
stw
I have considered getting a gun to protect my family. I live in a very rural county and if someone broke into my house while my wife were home alone she currently has no protection other then our 2 large, vocal dogs. The Sheriff's office is only a phone call away but the nearest Deputy might be quite far away. What would happen if really hard times hit and we have any kind of societal breakdown? What I mean by this is: suppose fuel prices skyrocket again (greedy oil companies and evil Arabs) and the grocery store shelves start getting bare. Electrical service becomes intermittent. Suppose I saw this coming and stored a year's supply of food essentials, fuel and water on my land. Next thing you know, my neighbor wants some. He comes over with his hand gun to appropriate some of my stores and I repel him with my shotgun. So he returns with a couple buddies and an assault rifle or two. OK, where does this end? Someone ends up dead. Do we really want to return to the day when he who carries the biggest gun wins all the gold? I know it is an extreme example but it could come about.
What really frightens me is that I am a pacifist, yet I am considering getting a gun. Next thing you know I will want to carry it around with me. I have had lots of training as a martial artist and tournament fighter; however, every time I began a fight the adrenalin rush was almost too much for me to control. I think that if I were in such a tense situation as having someone shooting a gun around that if I drew a weapon I'd be shaking so much I might shoot anything or anybody. I am having trouble getting past the idea that when eventually most people are walking around armed, that every argument would end up with a gun being involved. I've got an employee that I know loves guns and has a carry permit. What if I have to terminate this person someday? Should I keep a gun in my desk to protect myself? I wonder how to keep guns out of the hands of people that have no business handling them. I knew a guy who was a University Police Officer and was so paranoid he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Neither of these people are criminals but I shudder to think of what might happen if either finds a bottle of SCOPE in his mailbox someday.
I wonder if it would be much of a deterrent for criminals if more people were armed? A sign outside the door that says "I own a gun and I'm not afraid to use it" might be just as detrimental. I suppose it depends upon the type crime. A crime of opportunity is more likely to be second thought then a crime of passion.
I guess that a perfect world only the Police and the criminals would have guns and there would be enough police around to protect us all.
stw
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thoughts on the Second Amendment
I admit right off that I am not much of a gun person. Not that I have anything against them or people who feel very strongly about them but my feeling is this: guns are made to kill or injure creatures; the Zen part of me doesn't want to kill or cause pain to anyone or anything (however, mosquitoes, ticks, black widows, fire ants, and pesky flies are exceptions). I do realize that if someone broke into my house and threatened my family I'd shoot them. I don't think I would try to kill them but the blast from a 12 gauge might stop an intruder and not kill them.
So #2 in the Bill of Rights says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There are tons of things written about what exactly this means. The Supreme Court has been kept busy across the years interpreting this one. I think James Madison probably didn't seem so vague in his day (in the middle of a revolution and all) but it makes sense that it be written vaguely for the future. I doubt Madison could envision some of the weapons available today. So he left us with a line that we would have to interpret over and over again as the times dictated. I see the Constitution in the same way I see the Holy Bible: No matter how it is interpreted the main points are pretty hard to miss. Madison definitely wanted us to have the right to own guns.
Clearly........you can't stop Americans from owning guns. What about crazy Americans? The first part of right #2 says that a "well regulated militia" is necessary. This is justification for our ability to have guns. The "well regulated" part implies that some limits must be in place. This is why it is certainly not unconstitutional to take guns away from minors, crazy people and people who have demonstrated an inability to regulate themselves (by obeying the law).
If you want to own a shotgun or handgun for your own protection. It is your right. But owning a basement full of AK-47s or parking a tank in your front yard does not make you part of any regulated militia. Why would any law abiding citizen need to have these types of weapons?
So #2 in the Bill of Rights says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There are tons of things written about what exactly this means. The Supreme Court has been kept busy across the years interpreting this one. I think James Madison probably didn't seem so vague in his day (in the middle of a revolution and all) but it makes sense that it be written vaguely for the future. I doubt Madison could envision some of the weapons available today. So he left us with a line that we would have to interpret over and over again as the times dictated. I see the Constitution in the same way I see the Holy Bible: No matter how it is interpreted the main points are pretty hard to miss. Madison definitely wanted us to have the right to own guns.
Clearly........you can't stop Americans from owning guns. What about crazy Americans? The first part of right #2 says that a "well regulated militia" is necessary. This is justification for our ability to have guns. The "well regulated" part implies that some limits must be in place. This is why it is certainly not unconstitutional to take guns away from minors, crazy people and people who have demonstrated an inability to regulate themselves (by obeying the law).
If you want to own a shotgun or handgun for your own protection. It is your right. But owning a basement full of AK-47s or parking a tank in your front yard does not make you part of any regulated militia. Why would any law abiding citizen need to have these types of weapons?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
"Do" concept as oppossed to "try" concept
Some thoughts on the concept of “ try ”:
If you say that you’ll “try” to do something: you start out with the possibility of failure.
It’s a way of setting up an excuse and thereby makes it easier to accept failure. However, if you set your mind to do your best, then failure is only possible if you are lazy or insincere.
For example: Someone asks you to build a wall in 2 days. If you say “I will try” and you don’t get it finished then you have failed. If you say “I will do my best” and you don’t complete the wall but you did give it your best, then you have not failed. In both cases the wall wasn’t completed so the larger goal wasn’t achieved; however, in the second case you feel better because you didn’t just fail. Think about whether you would rather say in hindsight: I tried, but didn’t get it finished (failure); or, I did my best (exactly what you set out to do), and feel good about it.
It is almost as if the word “try” is used as a rationale for lack of success. Why start anything out halfway to failure. You may be thinking: “Ok, so as long as I do my best it is ok to fail…..”. This is a defeatist attitude. Failure is ok. It is part of life. To attempt something and do your very best is all anyone can ever ask of you. Only you and God know for sure if you gave it your all.
Setting out to do your best and saying it is a way of keeping yourself honest; if you don’t do your best (are you slack, unmotivated, lazy, a bum?) then you can’t honestly say you did. All you can say is “I tried” (but how hard?).
If you want to maximize your chances of completing a task, don’t even consider failure as a possibility when you start it. Remember what that wise old sage Yoda said to Luke Skywalker: “…try not. Do or do not. There is no try”.
stw
If you say that you’ll “try” to do something: you start out with the possibility of failure.
It’s a way of setting up an excuse and thereby makes it easier to accept failure. However, if you set your mind to do your best, then failure is only possible if you are lazy or insincere.
For example: Someone asks you to build a wall in 2 days. If you say “I will try” and you don’t get it finished then you have failed. If you say “I will do my best” and you don’t complete the wall but you did give it your best, then you have not failed. In both cases the wall wasn’t completed so the larger goal wasn’t achieved; however, in the second case you feel better because you didn’t just fail. Think about whether you would rather say in hindsight: I tried, but didn’t get it finished (failure); or, I did my best (exactly what you set out to do), and feel good about it.
It is almost as if the word “try” is used as a rationale for lack of success. Why start anything out halfway to failure. You may be thinking: “Ok, so as long as I do my best it is ok to fail…..”. This is a defeatist attitude. Failure is ok. It is part of life. To attempt something and do your very best is all anyone can ever ask of you. Only you and God know for sure if you gave it your all.
Setting out to do your best and saying it is a way of keeping yourself honest; if you don’t do your best (are you slack, unmotivated, lazy, a bum?) then you can’t honestly say you did. All you can say is “I tried” (but how hard?).
If you want to maximize your chances of completing a task, don’t even consider failure as a possibility when you start it. Remember what that wise old sage Yoda said to Luke Skywalker: “…try not. Do or do not. There is no try”.
stw
Monday, January 12, 2009
The secret of happiness?
Anyone who has gotten an email from me in the last year or so may have noticed the signature saying I use at the end of my messages: Be nice, work hard, never take more then you need, give freely, be thankful for what you are given, and have fun........
M&JW are my parents Marilyn and Jack Wheeler. These are things that I learned from them about how to live a good life and how I hope I live mine:
Both my parents stressed that we should always be nice to everyone and everything. Don't be mean or cruel ever. Treat others the way you like to be treated.......golden rule type thing.
I definitely got my work ethic from my folks. Mom was a professional. She graduated from a 4 year nursing program and was a Registered Nurse. She was also a full time housewife and mother. Dinner was always on the table at 5:30 on the dot. She washed and cleaned house daily. Dad has always defined himself (like most men) by his work and whatever he needed to do to provide for his family. And he did always manage to provide for us. If he wasn't working at the office he was working around the house. Dad has never been a "couch potato". No matter how difficult things were, we always had plenty to eat, good clothes on our back and a roof over our heads.
"Don't be greedy"; I heard growing up. Much of my pragmatism and thrifty nature come from my Scotch heritage but it also started at the dinner table: "don't let your eyes be bigger than your stomach" was the adage bestowed whenever we stopped by the Davis House Cafeteria. Although I never remember either of my parents say that waste is evil, I certainly got the idea from them.
Mom and Dad were both givers. Mom always gave hugs and after she retired she also gave sugar cookies (sometime I'll devote an entire blog to Mom's sugar cookies.....maybe a novel). Dad mostly has given his time and attention. Even today he still is very active in Church and his Homeowner's Association. Dad has always been a leader. Never dictatorial, but always in control of a group. In college I was taught a theory called "Situational Leadership" by a couple of higher education gurus named Hersey and Blanchard (basically some people are self starters and some people need to be kicked in the ass to varying degrees). To my surprise I already had learned "Situational Leadership" by observing my father as a leader. He called it "common sense". Boy Scouts, church, neighborhood, and (after retirement) Northside Hospital........Dad has always been willing to jump in. My older brother was always bothered that Dad "didn't do Little League with us" (never really an athlete, my dad) but he really did in his own way. He never coached (a smart move I think, having tried it myself) but I believe he knew his own limitations, and he always supported our desires to participate in sports. Practices and games; Dad and/or Mom were always there. To give without expectation of getting anything in return,,,,,,,,my parents by example (and another great subject for another day).
"Never take anything for granted". This was a theme always present. Thank God, your teachers, your parents, your relatives, your friends, and yes,,,,,,,,,even your older brother for all they do for you and give to you. Somewhere along the way I learned that we are all born naked. All we have is given unto us. We may earn a great deal of what we get but someone else always decides the pay rate. We may have allot but everything really belongs to God.
My folks always made lemonade when life gave us lemons. Mom taught me to sing with a joyful heart even though I've never learned to hold a tune. She whistled constantly. And everything was done with a smile. I used to hate any kind of yard work growing up; and Saturdays consisted of yard work. Mom, Dad and all three of us boys cutting grass, raking leaves, planting azaleas (Dad tried so hard to have a great lawn) etc.. I now understand how and why it was fun for them. For no other explainable reason I enjoy hard work.....especially around my yard and house. I was taught it was fun.....and it really is.
Many of the best things I learned from my parents were taught by example. Neither philosophized but they had great philosophies. Wonderful people my parents. I am truly one of the lucky ones.
stw
M&JW are my parents Marilyn and Jack Wheeler. These are things that I learned from them about how to live a good life and how I hope I live mine:
Both my parents stressed that we should always be nice to everyone and everything. Don't be mean or cruel ever. Treat others the way you like to be treated.......golden rule type thing.
I definitely got my work ethic from my folks. Mom was a professional. She graduated from a 4 year nursing program and was a Registered Nurse. She was also a full time housewife and mother. Dinner was always on the table at 5:30 on the dot. She washed and cleaned house daily. Dad has always defined himself (like most men) by his work and whatever he needed to do to provide for his family. And he did always manage to provide for us. If he wasn't working at the office he was working around the house. Dad has never been a "couch potato". No matter how difficult things were, we always had plenty to eat, good clothes on our back and a roof over our heads.
"Don't be greedy"; I heard growing up. Much of my pragmatism and thrifty nature come from my Scotch heritage but it also started at the dinner table: "don't let your eyes be bigger than your stomach" was the adage bestowed whenever we stopped by the Davis House Cafeteria. Although I never remember either of my parents say that waste is evil, I certainly got the idea from them.
Mom and Dad were both givers. Mom always gave hugs and after she retired she also gave sugar cookies (sometime I'll devote an entire blog to Mom's sugar cookies.....maybe a novel). Dad mostly has given his time and attention. Even today he still is very active in Church and his Homeowner's Association. Dad has always been a leader. Never dictatorial, but always in control of a group. In college I was taught a theory called "Situational Leadership" by a couple of higher education gurus named Hersey and Blanchard (basically some people are self starters and some people need to be kicked in the ass to varying degrees). To my surprise I already had learned "Situational Leadership" by observing my father as a leader. He called it "common sense". Boy Scouts, church, neighborhood, and (after retirement) Northside Hospital........Dad has always been willing to jump in. My older brother was always bothered that Dad "didn't do Little League with us" (never really an athlete, my dad) but he really did in his own way. He never coached (a smart move I think, having tried it myself) but I believe he knew his own limitations, and he always supported our desires to participate in sports. Practices and games; Dad and/or Mom were always there. To give without expectation of getting anything in return,,,,,,,,my parents by example (and another great subject for another day).
"Never take anything for granted". This was a theme always present. Thank God, your teachers, your parents, your relatives, your friends, and yes,,,,,,,,,even your older brother for all they do for you and give to you. Somewhere along the way I learned that we are all born naked. All we have is given unto us. We may earn a great deal of what we get but someone else always decides the pay rate. We may have allot but everything really belongs to God.
My folks always made lemonade when life gave us lemons. Mom taught me to sing with a joyful heart even though I've never learned to hold a tune. She whistled constantly. And everything was done with a smile. I used to hate any kind of yard work growing up; and Saturdays consisted of yard work. Mom, Dad and all three of us boys cutting grass, raking leaves, planting azaleas (Dad tried so hard to have a great lawn) etc.. I now understand how and why it was fun for them. For no other explainable reason I enjoy hard work.....especially around my yard and house. I was taught it was fun.....and it really is.
Many of the best things I learned from my parents were taught by example. Neither philosophized but they had great philosophies. Wonderful people my parents. I am truly one of the lucky ones.
stw
Friday, January 9, 2009
I get it........already in need of an editor
That wonderful wife of mine has pointed out just how badly I do spell. Therefore, I will (although it is an unnatural movement for me) to the best of my ability: press the spell check button before I exit any entries (postings, but I like the oxymoron). In all actuality, I did leave the misspelling of "collegiate" on purpose as sort of an illustration, but the other words left badly mangled were due to a sense of urgency to finish my original posting (someone came into my office).
stw
stw
To start with....
Ok......before I start rambling on about anything else.........I have a wonderful wife. She is soooooo wonderful. She is kind, sweet, cute, smart, sexy and she puts up with my rambling.
Now that I have bought into the prose of the 21st century.........a note to all who read this blog:
I ramble. I will do my very best to keep the rambling to a minimum but I see this as my place to ramble. That being said: I will occassionally offer my opinion.........I see this as my place to offer my opinion. Please don't be offended. I mean no offense. Offer your opinion also and do your best to change my mind. I'm quite open to change. I do think I'm right some of the time but I also am proven wrong quite often.
From time to time I may use somewhat colorful terminology that may resemble common obscenities. I don't usually talk or write this way but if the mood strikes sometimes it is hard to contain the emotions.
I can't spell "wurth schit" so I utilize a 1976 edition Webster's New Colligiate Dictionary (a High school graduation gift) for spelling, style and punctuation. I trust it more and can look things up faster then with spell check. I won't catch everything, and although I like to write correctly; time doesn't always allow for much proofreading.
JOIN IN! Good communication and kindness can save us all....
stw
Now that I have bought into the prose of the 21st century.........a note to all who read this blog:
I ramble. I will do my very best to keep the rambling to a minimum but I see this as my place to ramble. That being said: I will occassionally offer my opinion.........I see this as my place to offer my opinion. Please don't be offended. I mean no offense. Offer your opinion also and do your best to change my mind. I'm quite open to change. I do think I'm right some of the time but I also am proven wrong quite often.
From time to time I may use somewhat colorful terminology that may resemble common obscenities. I don't usually talk or write this way but if the mood strikes sometimes it is hard to contain the emotions.
I can't spell "wurth schit" so I utilize a 1976 edition Webster's New Colligiate Dictionary (a High school graduation gift) for spelling, style and punctuation. I trust it more and can look things up faster then with spell check. I won't catch everything, and although I like to write correctly; time doesn't always allow for much proofreading.
JOIN IN! Good communication and kindness can save us all....
stw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
