Corporarion vs Government

The goal and purpose of a corporation is to make a profit and increase shareholder value. To do so they need employees.
The purpse of a goverenment is to protect and serve the best interests of its citizens.

A corporation has employees and a government has  citizens. While it is true most employees are citizens not every citizen work for a company. Therein lies an enormous differecen bewtween the two organizations. If a company fears it might lose profit it tends to shed employees. If a merger takes place within an industry the objective is to reduce duplicaiton in tasks which means shedding more employees. When the discharged employee has left and his separation time frame and beneifts are finished the coproariton has no longer any respnichulity nor interst in that particualr employee.

A gobernment can not get rid of

In both instances I could say, based on how well they are run, how organized they are and how completely they respond to me, as a customer, why not call them in the event of an emergency?

I could go on with dozens of examples of stores and companies we visit or buy from that are all so well run they are literal models of efficiency, quality and service. Apple is a great company. Maybe I should call them the next time my house is broken into. Or Google, for example is probably the single most data driven company on earth. They know more about me than even I do. So should I call them in the event I need someone to teach my children or stay with an ailing parent?

What I am getting at is seemingly obvious but there is a point here. Why do so may people believe, even people with an advanced education, that having a business person running the United States is such a good idea? It is something I always hear around election time. So and so is a better potential candidate because they started a business or they have been successful in a business or they have become immorally wealthy because they know how to buy and sell businesses.

In the minds of most Americans there has always been a confluence of business and government as though they are interchangeable, indistinguishable from one another.  If they are indistunguishable then a successful person in one is certain to use the same skills and be successful in the other.

I beg to differ and, as always,  I like to start at the beginning. What is the point, the purpose, of a corporation and what is the point,  the purpose, of a government?

According to the Preamble to the Constitution the purpose of the federal government is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

According to the Milton Friedman doctrine, for a corporation there is one and only one social responsibility, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits.
Said differently, they are seen essentially as a vehicle for maximizing the wealth of their shareholders, to maintain the good will with their stakeholders and most most of all, to maximize profits.

Now do those two purposes seem to align? No. To begin with a government has citizens and a corporations  has employees. In all cases citizens and employees are the same. Most corporate employees are citizens but not all citizens work for coporations.  If a corporation, in pursuit of its primary purpose, needs to reduce expenses they look to what is usually their largest expense, employees,  and to increase their profits they do so by reducing their number of employees. Governments, on the other hand,  have citizens and cannot get rid of them. All American, as long as they are alive, are citizens and cannot be removed by any means. In a corporation when a citizen applies for a job, he/she must demonstrate qualifications to become an employee. Credentials, schooling, background all count in decisions made for employment. In government there are no entrance exams to be a citizen save for the process immigrants need to go through to be granted citizenship. If you are born here you do no cognitive testing. You are not required to do or to know anything.
Not all citizens begin at the same starting line either. Most have diverse backgrounds some of which are fortunate, others, not so. Stagger the start of any race, give an advantage to one over the other and the outcome is almost set in stone. So too as a citizen. We did not all begin with equal opportunity and have a different road to travel to achieve a level of success.

Look at the org chart of a company. They have production, distribution, marketing, finances, governance and legal. They all adhere to  a single mission statement and follow the same guidelines to manifest the corporate mandate.   On the other hand a government has 15 different departments, agriculture, energy, interior, state, education, defense, treasury etc. Within each cabinet level department there are many sub departments all with the same goal as defined by the Director. Not all of them are the same because they have different mandates but their overall objective is the security and well being of the citizens of the country. In government research and development, science, education and security are all investments made by most of the departments to plan for the future. Most companies are focused on a 3 month calendar cycle that is required by Wall Street and investing in new products, research, on going education can be expensive and costly when measured against profit goals. They need to be risk adverse.

When a company goes off shore to lower costs they deprive many Americans of those jobs. When they lay off employees by the thousands they leave untold levels of despair in countless families. Yet corporations are referred to as job creators.

When those laid off or terminated and run the course of their severance package they are no longer a problem to the coprpartion. They don't even exist any longer. Corporations don't have to pay attention to the drug use, divorce rate, criminal acts, suicides, homelessness and general malaise that overwhelms the unemployed. But. The goverrnemnt does. The government has to be there at the lowest level of a persons welfare and dignity. The government has to provide resources and incentives to lift people up and get them back into a productive life. When an industry is decimated by new technology such as coal, manufacturing jobs or retail work the government must step in and offer eduction, guidance and hope to those displaced people. The corporations that were most affected by the technical revolution are downsizing as fast as they can. They do not take any responsibility for those who are inducted-ividually left behind. This is where a real government comes into play.  Can you imagine a corporate CEO with decades of experience running a profitable business based on eliminating all un necessary costs having the empathy or sensitivity or even the skills to step up and take care of the people left behind?

We currently have a president who ran a small company. I would imagine not one single Fortune 500 company would ever consider donald trump a candidate to run their business yet he was elected to run a vastly different, overwhelmingly larger and more complex organism than any business enterprise and one can see, based on his first three years in office, he clearly knows nothing about running a country. The various agencies have been hollowed out of career professionals. probably a good move for a CEO but for a country? We have political contriubtuots in most of the positions of authoruugty, with no relevant knowledge other than they contributed money to get someone elected. Is that in our best interest

CORONA VIRUS: March 1, 2020

I have been intrigued all these years about the debate on climate change. Not so much about the efficacy of it but the sheer certainty of those who don't believe in it nor have any background in any science that would support their belief. But that lack of expertise does not slow them down from their dogmatic certianty to their opinion.

We dropped out of the Paris Accord because of our lack of agreement on its mission. But were we right to drop out? How can anyone with no background be sure? They can't.

Next the world has become obsessed with nationalism as a positive and globalism as a negative.
Globalism came about because the corporate world realized their were suppliers and customers in other parts of the world that could have a measurable impact of their revenues and profits. So they bought into the concept, hook line and sinker. Find cheaper sources of supply, good for lowering manufacturing and employment expense and find a far larger source of additional revenue from new overseas customers. Both very good ideas from a corporate point of view.

But most recently we have decided as have many other advanced nations that we must think of us first and the others last. We are not our brother's keeper any longer. Why should we spend our money on the welfare of others, outside our borders. Nationalism has become the new trend. The outcome has to divide the country by ideology, by economics, by philosophy, by inequality, by religious belief, by age and demographic.  We are truly divided as a nation and there does not seem to anyone in office or on the horizon that can bring us together.

I think our basic human nature must take over. We have to devolve back to our original purpose of being alive. In a word. SURVIVE. That is the number one priority of every living organism.  We have lost all contact with the idea and replaced it with an untold number of personal interest, prejudices, opinions and priorities, none of which mean anything when compared with our own survival.

What will bring all of us together? What will make us all realize we are in this together and no one has a free pass? A major catastrophe. Well it looks like we are getting one, whether we want it or not or like it or not.

Corona virus is descending on us. Time will tell how it manifests itself but right now it is the first subject on the global news, in the entire world and it is the most significant thing anyone is thinking or talking about. We will find out if it is powerful enough to replace the preoccupation we have with our own view of the world with a more concerted, communal, worldview, should of our situation. We are in this together. We are no longer nationalists. We have to be all in on this or we will all lose.

Maybe it will influence all of us to realize the survival of our home, the planet earth, is more important to us individually and collectively and  is not defined, like a virus by arbitrary borders.

PORN IMAGES EXPLODING

Interesting facts from the NYT article. 9/28, 2019

Photos and videos posted on line of children being sexually abused or tortured have increased from around 3,000 in 1998 to 45 million in 2018.

Legislation was passed in 2008 to deal with the subject but was underfunded and was not given proper authorization. Its authority is under the justice department but has not been assigned a full-time administrator.  A budget of $60miillion was budgeted but half of it has never been allocated. Homeland security took $6 Billion from the funds for border issues.

Tech companies have not been helpful and reporting of violations are mired in understaffing, old technology and little cooperation.  Reports, if there are any, are late, delayed or non-existent. 

Less than 2% of the on-line infractions are even investigated.  

The technology used by the offenders is state of the art and the technologies used by the defenders, law enforcement, the government, is old and out dated. It is not even close to comparable. The offenders use the many sites to learn how to avoid detection, to find new sources to share and how to stay encrypted.

Facebook Messenger was responsible for 12 of the 18 million images in 2018. 

There are individual sites like Love Zone that deals in this material. They have 30K subscribers.

A site, Tumbler, is one of the biggest offenders, with 450 million subscribers, not all involved in pornographic imagery but a huge number of perpetrators are thought to be on this platform.

The dark web has instructions for how to make the videos, how to photograph and how to encrypt the images for self-protection and sharing the material by the perpetrators. 

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, established in 1984 was launched to locate missing children and has worked in this area of photos and videos. They prioritize their own activities by age of those offended but have little money and virtually no support to continue their efforts. There is an ugliness to this issue that causes people to not even want to deal with it.

Those who are offenders are thought to be people who did not mature past the age where they first found arousal. So, if a boy was first aroused by a ten-year-old girl he would continue throughout his life to be aroused by girls the same age. The ages most preyed on are from 6 years to 17 years. 1 – 4% of men and women participate. There is an expression “people don’t choose what arouses them, they discover it”

Root cause of child abuse is thought to develop in a prenatal stage. It is not genetic. But if abused in childhood the data no longer supports that they will be involved in hands on abuse as adults.  Rather, the abused are more inclined to drug and alcohol abuse, stress and criminality. 

But those who are physical abusers will participate in on line abuse at rates often as high as 60%-80% of the time. 

For the overwhelming number of on-line abusers (the 45 million) there is about a 5% chance they will advance to physical abuse. These abusers are referred to as “virtuous pedophiles” They look at material, share it but do not progress to hands on abuse. They have gone underground due to the heightened level of scrutiny and the opportunity to encrypt their activities. The medical profession has been interested in studying them because they appear to have control of their needs without going to the next step.

Pedophiles will participate in on-line abuse. On line abusers probably will not.

This is a problem that is not going away. 

PERSONHOOD

Like most people I have an opinion on the frenzy of state adoption legislation that has gone viral in the last several months. My opinion is based on freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom from oppression and freedom from governmental intervention, whenever it wants or whatever it wants. 

Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject with, what I hope will be suggestions on how to mitigate the overbearing burden imposed by the states in question.

A few facts: Not everyone who gets pregnant wants to have a baby nor can afford to have one. Not every parent can afford to raise a seriously deformed child. Many women would prefer not to raise the child of a family member or stranger who raped them 

Many potential parents are classified as poor, below a certain poverty line and may not choose to have a child and will treat said child as unwanted.  Visit any detention facility in this country and ask how many of the residents could be considered unwanted. Probably most of them. The foster care system, jail, gangs, detox centers, homeless shelters are full of unwanted children. 

While there seems to be a serious effort in many states, mostly by white males, to control the lives of women, an oddity from a party that is so obsessed with keeping government out of their lives, I felt I could offer a few suggestions states might consider “adopting” as codicils to the newly minted right to life, anti-abortion legislation.

So here they are, in no particular order. They may seem draconian but keep in mind a born child is a living American human being and should be entitled to all the benefits available to all Americans. 

From conception every child, who qualifies, will be assigned legal counsel to look out for the child’s interests, at the state’s expense, until the child reaches 18 years of age. The child must have their rights protected by a requirement that the health behavior of the parent must be consistent with a normal healthy birth. If the parent is on drugs or demonstrating any behaviors that could risk the health of the unborn child the state must step in and provide full coverage and service for the mother and her health, to assure a healthy birth, at the states expense. If the mother is on welfare, food stamps, Medicaid or other state benefits the child automatically goes on them at the moment of conception, provided by the state. If there is no health insurance in the household the state has to provide it for the child at the state expense. The child is also counted at conception in the population. The child is represented until 18 years of age, if the parent cannot care for him/her. The child cannot be given up at birth, or sent to adoption without the child’s legal counsel consent. If such a choice is desired by the parent, the state has to pay for the care until such an acceptable, suitable arrangement can be established. The state cannot do anything to the child unless the child’s legal counsel agrees. The state pays for all legal-council expenses. The mother is allowed in the HOV lane with her unborn person.

With every decision there are consequences.  If states are to define, control and mandate how people live their lives then those very same states must put up the resources to guarantee the unborn are provided the same rights to a healthy life, as any other citizen in the state. If the family can’t pay for the services then the state must. 

I wonder which state will begin this process.

  

Open Letter to Tiger and Everyone Else

I recently wrote an open letter to Tiger Woods on winning the Masters, his 15th major golf event and his first win in 11 years. I thought what was left out of the massive media coverage of his comeback was the effort it required from him to get to such an exalted place. He did what he had to do and he did it on his own. If we think about what he had to do to get back, realizing how rich he is, how famous he is and how little he needed to do in order to continue his popularity, one might wonder "would I do such a thing"? Or, would any of our leaders, our politicians, our business CEO's do what he did? I am very doubtful which is why I was so impressed with what he endured in order to fulfill his own personal goals. We need to be more mindful of what is required to be successful. It is not money or power but rather the characteristics we all recognize as essential, the ones I articulate in the letter to Tiger. Enjoy.

Dear Tiger. 

Congratulations on your incredible Masters victory. I know you have received accolades from around the world, as you should. You deserve every ounce of praise that was heaped on you. like millions of other fans, I read as much as I could about your victory and its impact on golf.   The victory was witnessed by a record setting number of TV fans, the wall to wall coverage focused on your victory, the amazing comeback, and your potential of exceeding Jack’s record number of Majors.  I felt only one thing was missing in the ocean of media coverage. What was left out was the journey you had to endure getting to that very moment of victory. Few, if any, have any concept of what you had to go through, had to sustain, on what must have been a lonely, frustrating and exhausting path to get to that final putt on Sunday.   

My take on your comeback is different and, I felt, was not given the attention it deserved, which I guess is why I am writing this letter.  Your comeback had nothing to do with gender, sponsors, nor behavior, but has everything to do with resolve, sacrifice, patience, commitment and courage. 

Let’s start with your sport, golf. If one wants to win in golf it is best not to get old and by all means don’t ever get injured. Those two things alone are career enders for most professional golfers. While you age in golf and sustain injuries your competitors get younger, stronger, healthier and better. You suffered from both. You got older and was seriously injured. There are many who speculate that your previous questionable behavior might have had something to do with the injuries you sustained, as humiliation can have an emotionally debilitating effect on anyone, but regardless, while you were dealing with your many injuries, whatever their cause, unfortunately you were also aging at the same time.  

Next, left out of most discussions is golf is not a team sport. It is an individual sport. You play it alongside many others but you play it alone. The best players have trainers, managers, agents, psychologists, therapists, etc., literally an army of supporters to help them get better, especially if they have money. But when standing over the ball, ready to drive, chip or putt no one hits the shot, but you. The shot is up to the player, not his supporters, or team members. Every shot is on him. No one gives him a mulligan for being injured, an extra stroke due to his age or an exemption due to his personal foibles. It is on him to hit the shot or not. Amplify that single shot by 18 holes, four days in a row, alongside the world’s best players, all of whom have the ability to hit that shot as well, if not better than you and it only magnifies by a factor the challenges facing all golfers at all levels

In your case, add 11 years to the drought. If now 43, eleven years ago you were 32, the absolute prime of every golfer’s life, when you last won an event, let alone a major. At that stage of your career you were already a legend, having accomplished more than anyone had in the past and no doubt would in the future. 

You had nothing to prove. Nothing. You could have put down your clubs and would never have lost your many records of accomplishment. But you chose to pursue your passion the only way you knew how. 

Where were you and what were you doing during those seemingly lost 11 years? Subsequent to all the front page, bad press concerning your personal behaviors we also read about your four back operations, watched you collapse and withdraw during a PGA event due to debilitating back pain, watched you miss several cuts, drop out of events due to injury and lose several times after coming close. In fact, several of the majors did not even invite you because you either did not qualify nor make the cut after two rounds. That had to be massively humiliating and depressing. After all you are Tiger Woods, for crying out loud. At one point I don’t think you were even ranked in the top 200 players in the world. The tour players, now competing with you, probably all grew up with you as their idol.  During those 11 years they were walking the same courses, competing in the same events, watching you, not playing poorly but pathetically. It is hard to imagine how humiliating that must have been for you. 

While underperforming at every level, nothing about your game, swing, short game, putting and preparation or your life in general were exempt from scrutiny. Everyone in the sport had an opinion or advice and never hesitated to weigh in on what they thought was wrong with you and what they thought you had to do to recover.

That was only the public part of your golf life. The part we could watch on TV or read about in the papers and magazines, but none of it had anything to do with what actually was going on behind the scenes.  The commitment you had to make, that none of us could see or hear. What it was you actually did, that we were all unaware of, to get to that 18^thgreen, in Augusta, at the Masters, needing only three putts to win your fifth jacket and 15^thmajor? That story can only be told using the above words, sacrifice, patience, resolve, work, commitment etc. 

Every golfer at every level knows axiomatically that he has to practice every day, if they want to continue to get better. And, they all do. That means they hit balls, putt, chip, hit sand shots, practice difficult shots and reproduce just about every conceivable situation they may face in a tournament and practice all of them, relentlessly. I mean hitting thousands upon thousands of shots, day after day after day. And that is only the golf part. You also had the surgery recovery part. The physical therapy, the pain, the stretching, the weight regimen and the setbacks. Who would be alongside you during all those practice and rehabilitation hours or years? Not the media, occasionally a coach for a few hours, not a therapist, nor agent, nor sponsors. Maybe not even Joey. No one can practice for you and no one can help you, simply by being there.  Golf, like most sports at the highest level, is about repetition, over and over and over again. By yourself, alone with no one watching, no applause, no encouragement and no sponsors standing there giving you money and praise for all your efforts. It is just you and your own personal commitment, resolve and passion. If rich beyond measure, no one needs to sweat like that, nor suffer the anguish of the debacle that might have been your last event, the one you could not finish, let alone win. And you Tiger, are beyond rich. 

Faced with the early overwhelming level of public distain for your personal choices you could have easily dropped out of competitive golf and lived a good life with you two adorable children and found a number of areas in golf where you would be not only welcomed but celebrated. Why should you subject yourself to the scrutiny of a turned off public, a less than acceptable game when it would be so much easier to just disappear, skip all the scrutiny and rest on the past laurels. It takes a monumental measure of courage to do what you chose to do.

Who would do such a thing? And why? And, for eleven years? I maintain, only you, Tiger. 

Your victory at the Masters has to be recognized as a metaphor for the characteristics we so admire but have in recent times seemingly overlooked in this country. The characteristics of hard work, effort, sacrifice, perseverance. Your accomplishment, in the face of such personal adversity and physical challenges, should be held up as a model to young people, boys and girls, that to compete at the highest levels, let alone win, one must be willing to sacrifice a great deal to achieve a dream. 

Currently we read about parents paying to get their kids into college, bribing coaches, hiring others to take SAT tests. Where were these students in the process? How hard did they work, how much did they sacrifice or did they just expect their parents to buy it for them? What about athletes who use drugs to get an edge over those not on drugs but might be faster, stronger or, even yes, better?  Is there an easier way than doing the required hard work? Lying, cheating, bribing, threatening, cutting in line all seem to be new and added choices. These are the behaviors we read about more and more on a daily basis not only from our athletes but from our elected officials, our highly compensated corporate executives and our leaders.  If the end result is not what is imagined, they blame it on something or someone else. Everyone wants miracles, the easiest way possible. We don’t want to do what we have to do to succeed. It is just too hard. If we can’t get what we want, are unwilling to put in the hours of effort required, then money is the tool we use to buy what we want.  Find the easy way and pay for it. That is what we are coming to

In effect we were not willing to go deep into that metaphorical cave, where there is only us, and practice until our hands bleed, or watch videos for hours to find that one flaw in our swing and go back to the cave and practice more. We might have wanted to attend that social event, taken a weekend off, gone on vacation and enjoyed ourselves as most of us do. Not you, Tiger. You stayed on the range, practiced your shots and then practiced some more. Courage? That defines courage. 

I maintain we might always acknowledge your personal indiscretions, don’t need to condone nor excuse them. But we must accept them and deal with them as you have. Going forward we must highlight the massive effort, the overwhelming sacrifice that went into your come back and hold that up as an example to all people. If you want to win, you want to be a champion you are going to have to work for it. Tiger, your comeback redefines the word work You earned it, like very few others. Your strength, resolve and your commitment are metaphorical for what this country was founded on and is something we need to get back quickly. You can be our best example.

Sincerely

A fan

DEFINE THE WORD

Throughout his excellent book FANTASYLAND: HOW AMERICA WENT HAYWIRE, Kurt Andersen refers to Puritans, Pilgrims, Mesmerists, Fundamentalists, Rationalists, Supernaturalists, Empiricists, Relativists, Creationists, Christians, Protestants, Pentecostalists and Charismatics. How many people in this world would have a single clue as to what any of those terms actually reference. Even if we included the difference between Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians. Would we really know? But they all do have one thing in common: they are all some variation on the continuing evolution of Christianity. Why do I mention them? Because in reading Andersens book I was forced to go to my IPAD word reference, more than once, for the definition of these terms and then think of how that term fit into the theme of his book. Had I not taken the time to look them up, more than once per term, I would not have been able to understand his book. I did look them up, felt I understood his point and therefore could agree with him on almost everything he posited. Had I not taken the time, I would still be in the dark.

Today, as I watched Maureen Sullivan interview John Hickenlooper, former governor of the State of Colorado and a recently announced presidential candidate, I was reminded of these terms in Andersen's book. About religion? No. She asked Hickenlooper if he was a capitalist or a socialist. She asked it in such a way that presumed everyone watching her show, including Hickenlooper, had the same definition of the two words.

When he responded he told her that he had started upwards of 20 businesses, was primarily interested in inspiring  others to raise money and start their own businesses, creating new jobs in the process. It sounded pretty Capitalistic to me. But no, she pressed on,  but would you "say" you are a capitalist? I have no idea how he could answer such a stupid question beyond the fact that he has demonstrated a career as a capitalist, which most of the other candidates can't claim.  She then proceeded to push him on his credentials vis a vis socialism. His response was in the state of Colorado, the vast major of citizens are on some form of universal health care. Now I am not certain but I believe the people who have extended care coverage in his state are quite happy with it and do not need to refer to it as socialism. So why push him on that? He clearly has an interest in the well being of his citizens, without reducing it to a single word.

My point? in the 60's and 70's I developed a theory I have used the theory thought my life. I call it my "accelerator word theory". It means that when a person hears a commonly used word they do not feel the need to have it defined, they simply accelerate to their understanding of what that word means to them. They literally "jump" to their own understanding of the word, forgoing all the possible nuances inherent in the word. When the same words, being used, have different meanings to two or more people then any chance of communication between them no longer exists. From the first mention of such a  word, they are on different planes, therefore have no change of ever agreeing. Take words like, socialism, capitalism, immigrants, muslims, gays and even today expand the concept to terms like patriot, freedom or even religion itself. The variety of meanings that have attached themselves, over the last many decades, to these terms, are so wide and dispirit they have lost their intended purpose in enhancing any form of communication. They have all become pejoratives to some and aspirations to others. But, definitely not the same thing.

If you are on different sides of an argument and want reconciliation, the definitions of the words being used must be agreed on, BEFORE the substance of the discussion can even begin. The biggest offender of this is the media. Maureen Sullivan, in her attempt to appear forceful should have asked the governor if,  "with this as its definition, would you agree you are a Capitalist"? If he agreed with her definition he could clearly claim to be one, or not.  If he did not agree with her definition he could have provided his own and then answered her question.

If media took that tack in their interview process, the interview, which  might take longer, would better inform the viewer and move people closer to a common understanding of the issues and maybe inspire us to be a less divided nation..

PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FATALITIES

In 2017 19% of all auto fatalities included a pedestrian. Imagine 5,977 pedestrians were killed in auto accidents, a 45% increase, says a recent news report. The auto industry answer? A new pre collision braking system technology, currently being tested. That is one good suggestion but not the only one.

Although the average weight of a car has dropped from over 4,000 pounds to slightly more than 3200 pounds due to more advanced materials, I think the average still exceeds the weight of the average human, who reports in at 137 pounds, (certainly not here in the USA), but still far less than the average automobile on the road.


Why are so many more of these type of accidents and deaths happening now? The quick answer is distractions. The driver is talking or texting on his phone. The average car today has more on-board electronics at the finger tips of the driver than most television sets and the attraction to using them can be overwhelming.  The walker is doing the same thing. More and more "both" are equally distracted. The result? More accidents and more pedestrian deaths.

I know if I am going to step out into a street, even when there is a well lit, painted cross walk I am going to look out for something that is traveling far faster than me and weighs more than 29 times as much as I do. I don't stand a chance in such a scenario.

But there is a different way at looking at this statistic and one that goes beyond the pedestrian involved accidents. That is, we have lost, or never fully understood, the social contract we accept every time we step out of our house.

Our house is our castle. Inside, alone, there are  no rules.  We can do pretty much whatever we want.
Once we walk outside of the house we join countless others in the public arena where the rules of engagement are vastly different from what they were when we were inside. The goal for all of us is to get back inside, safely and alive. I'll bet the 5,977 above pedestrian statistics  had the exact same goal in mind, when they left their house.

When we leave our house,  we join countless others;  walkers, drivers, shoppers, joggers, bikers and virtually every other known mode of transportation.  We also are subject to every other conceivable distraction that has begun to command more and more of our attention. Phones, friend notifications, retail text messages,  news alerts, all demanding immediacy are the new constant.

We have to come to grips with the fact that we are no longer in total control of the environment or of anyone or anything else we encounter, when we enter the public. Every person out there has their own reasons for being there. Add to the escalating chaos and distractions, the weather, the traffic, the time of day, our location, the rules of the road and numerous other unforeseen variables, it is clear no one has the attention span to take it all in. One could not possibly imagine the number of unpredictable encounters we are subject to every time we leave our house.

How does this relate to the pedestrian fatalities in cross walks? Simple. At every intersection there are two people, a driver  and a walker. The above mentioned pre collision braking system is one answer for the driver. What about the walker? As a walker we must accept responsibility, that when crossing a well lit, lined, cross walk we can be entering a potential danger zone. As walkers we cannot change how drivers act. But we can take responsibility for how we act. True, the law says we are entitled to cross a street, where properly marked, without being hit by a motor vehicle. That is a privilege.  But if we believe that is our right and we are entitled to that right the very moment we step off the curb, we may end making that argument in the morgue.

Have we checked the cars on the road, estimated their speed, looked into the drivers eyes to see if they are even there, taken an inventory of how many cars are yet to come, can we wait another 10-15 seconds. Once we begin the crossing are we actually crossing or are we still on the phone, is this a cross walk or a stroll down a country path, am I alone out here, are others crossing? The questions we should be asking are numerous and they are all intended to keep us safe. Our safety, is our responsiblity.

The world has gotten faster, our attention span has gotten shorter.  That combination alone should be ample evidence that when in public we have to take a much greater share of responsibility, for our own safety.

That is one way we can lower the rate of pedestrian deaths. Take responsibility.

SOCIAL MEDIA HAS A BAD REPUTATION

For the last few years the social media world has exploded with negative, hate filled, venomous attacks on all types of people. It is generally acceptable for people to disagree and even to argue their point vehemently but the rhetoric recently has been downright hostile, if not violent.

I use social media every day. I use Facebook primarily to keep in contact with many people I worked with years ago. From the time I retired to now I have seen many of them get new jobs, find a spouse, have a child, and have a child go to high school, college and beyond. Sadly I have also seen some of the nicest people pass away.

My experience with FB has been incredible and I believe had it not been for such a platform I would have completely lost touch with all  these folks years ago and that would have been my loss.

Occasionally I wanted to say something philosophical or even to a lesser degree political and I have posted my thoughts on FB. I am generally met with some agreement and some disagreement. But these postings for me are minimal and not at all important compared to what I experience with my old buddies from work.


I also use Twitter but I use it for a completely different reason. I hardly, if ever, post anything on Twitter. What I have done is to curate people I respect. People who are opinionated, connected to worlds I am not connected to and for the most part, are not at all rabid political mouth pieces.  Journalists are my favorite connections because they are involved in many worlds I am interested in, read many other periodicals I don't read and their postings often include links to material I would not normally be aware of. I have read many books that have come out of postings by many of the people I follow. Because of Twitter I am exposed to some of the most interesting writing, postings, theories and philosophies that would otherwise be unavailable to me.


Finally I have subscribed to, or have been offered, for free, why I don't know, many sites that are, for the most part devoted to humor. Not humor at someones expense but just plain funny things; cartoons, jokes, anecdotes and comedians. I laugh out loud every single day of my life and I do so multiple times every day. Can anyone think of any reason why that is not an incredible gift?

My point. Social media is vastly more about information that can be enlightening, educational, humorous and inspiring than it is about hate filled retribution, name calling and self righteous polemics.

Social media has gotten a bad name and reputation for many well deserved reasons but the negativity surrounding it as a platform is not the complete story. If we look for what interests us, what motivates us and what inspires us, it is all out there for our use, whenever we want it. That is the good side of social media. It needs to be said from time to time

MY MEETING AS THE PRESIDENT

Were I to be president for a day here is what I would do.

I would invite every television network with an audience of more than 1 million citizens to attend a meeting at the white house. The subject of the meeting would be terrorism.

When assembled I would ask them for a commitment that whenever there is a terrorist event anywhere in the world they agree to report the incident in exactly the same way.

Just the details. The location, the presumed casualties, the method, the source and any other pertinent information that might give citizens information related to travel restrictions, warnings or suggestions.

Beyond that I would ask them to promise the news would never be reported in more detail. No faces of the perpetrators, no scenes of the bloodshed, no connections to every other terrorist incident that has occurred in the last decade, no on air talking heads, no experts telling us about more intended targets and once the vital stats are in then it goes off the air completely, one-day coverage only, NO VIDEO.

There are two things going on with terrorist activities. One, is what they do and how they do it, is terrifying everyone in this, and other peace seeking countries, and two, it gives the terrorists exactly what they want, publicity, coverage and home grown bragging rights.

If they see the news and it includes a spoken only announcement, with no video, of two bombings in Saudi Arabia, for example, at two different mosques, with an estimated number of people killed and wounded, period, they might not be so interested in continuing these horrible activities. There would be no one to know anything more about what they are up to. They would become faceless, nameless and above all else voiceless.

Terrorists need a vehicle to continue the fear their reign of terror infects in us all. Since they cannot kill everyone in the world, although that is probably their intensions, the idea of killing, death, terrorism and fear are their weapons of choice but they need media coverage in order to intensify the horror and immediacy of their activities.

Our national media only assists them in their messaging and gives them the coverage they could never afford to buy.  Profiles of the attackers, photographs and video of their lives before they detonate, where they come from, information about their families, their travel history, age, background and any other pertinent data media can uncover. It is a full profile of someone who is so invisible before they committed the crime they are probably not even known by the people living next door to them. Now they are international superstars, but only to the very worst people in the world. And, it is only because we gave them the voice.

We are told to go on with our lives, given all the stats about how it is just as likely we can step on a turtle and die as it is to die from a terrorist attack but those messages are a total waste of time. We go to airports, movie theaters, ball games etc and never go there without constant reminders of the terror lurking in the dark. We are afraid and that is exactly the place these people want us to be.

Do we really need our media to further our fear with the images of death, bloodshed, destruction and chaos just before we go to sleep or to Disney Land?

ON THE LOSS OF A DOG

Christmas was going well. Lots of text messages with videos of the grandkids opening presents and lots of laughs on both sides of the family phone calls.

I took a moment to check on my Face Book friends and discovered a dear friend lost her dog.  The reason was a rare form of canine cancer, not treatable and not expected. I was devastated. I called her at the first moment I could and cried along with her because I know the depth of the feelings one goes to when they lose a dog.

I started to think about losing the several dogs throughout my life and how hard it was to absorb each one. I know losing a dog is the downside of having a dog. Everyone who has ever had a dog knows it is a price we will pay, but never plans for it and is devastated when it occurs.

Why is it? Why is it so hard? We always hear how having a dog in our life is the closest thing to having unconditional love. Maybe that is it. We will lose that love.  While I do agree, I also think it might be the reverse that makes a dog so special. It is the ability we have to give them “our” unconditional love, to love them with no restraints.

The idea of giving of ourselves to anyone is a very hard. Giving unconditionally is next to impossible. If we love someone and they disappoint us, it is hard to live with. If we buy something and it does not live up to expectations we are disappointed. Whatever we do and whoever we are with, to give ourselves unconditionally can be emotionally difficult. Unconditional means accepting an abnormal sense of vulnerability and none of us wants to be that out of control. We need, or we feel we need, at all times, to be protective of ourselves, especially our emotional selves.

Feelings are the true media to our life experiences. Feelings, good and bad, are what make us conscious of being alive. But we rarely allow ourselves to go too deeply into any of our emotions. We feel the need to protect ourselves from the disappointments, the failures, the risks and the potential emptiness. We hesitate trusting too many people. The more we isolate ourselves from real disappointment the better will be the outcome.

But what exactly is the full range of emotions? How high can they go, how deep? I think the range is incalculable. We do feel the highs of an emotion and love the sense of joy it gives us.  But if the height of the emotions we willingly go to means we will have to go to a corresponding depth then maybe we need to recalibrate our willingness to go to any excess at all.   Maybe the best course of action is to stay close to the line of emotional normalcy. Feel good about things, but not too good. Maybe then the feelings we have to endure on the downside might not be all that bad. At least we can hope so. 

I think this is where illegal drugs come in. Drugs keep us away from the depths of despair, give us a false sense of emotional high and simply keep us on an emotionally flat line so we can avoid really feeling anything, up or down. Drugs are artificial emotional leveling devices.  They breed a false sense of emotional normalcy without having to live with the consequences of honest, drug free feelings.

Which brings me back to dogs. Here is the true description of unconditional. We can and do love our dogs “unconditionally”. We accept the dog for what he or she is. Correspondingly she accepts us unconditionally for who we are. We don’t judge our dogs. They never judge us. They are not jealous, envious, or competitive and expect very little from us. They are unaware of our faults and accept us for whatever we give them.

If we are up, so is the dog. If we are down the dog comforts us. If we want to play, so will the dog. The dog will make us laugh, and allow us to feel joy just by watching what they do from one minute to the next. The dog does not get mad at us, does not hurt us, holds no grudges and does not have a mean bone in its body. With our dog we can simply let ourselves go and give everything we have to the dog.

As humans we love music, films, theater, books and most creative diversions because they are pathways into our emotions, safe pathways. They thrill us, scare us, and make us laugh and cry. We can feel retribution, success, jealousy, fear and anger. But all of the feelings we have are responsibility free. Nothing we felt was a result of anything we did. We experience emotions that are without consequence. We leave the theater, the playhouse, turn off the turntable with a sated emotional experience.  It is so much more preferable than actually being in a position where we experience those emotions as a result of our own actions.  That would be almost unbearable.

Not so with a dog. We love them.  We know we are all in. We hold nothing back. We protect nothing of ourselves with our dogs. We give them everything we are and expect nothing back. We don’t judge them from one day to another on how they speak to us. There is no tone of voice, no bad moods, no depression, only happiness. 

What a glorious feeling it is to be a human with a capacity to love, to give, to share and to feel the beauty of our emotions when in full bloom. Unfortunately as humans we constructed a world where we have to protect ourselves from giving those gifts too freely and unconditionally because of how we treat each other. We must protect ourselves or we might suffer. There is a huge risk in going all in on something or someone with no way back. Not with a dog.

Who is the loser when the gift of giving is such a rewarding human feeling but has to be monitored lest we go too far and have to pay an emotional price? US.

The gift of giving is the greatest gift we possess. The thought of giving ourselves unconditionally is so seductive yet seemingly so alien that it is one of our real life dichotomies.

Not so with our dogs. We give to them without ever thinking about it. It is the gift of giving that is so seductive.  . We are sharing ourselves with our dogs. They see us, accept us and love us in return.  

I think that is why it is so hard to lose a dog. When they go a part of ourselves goes with them, the part we love most about ourselves.  Will we ever be able to let ourselves go again? Will we ever feel the shared love again? I don’t know for sure but what I do know is we will never go deeper into the depths of despair as we do when we lose our dog.

     

MY NEW RESOLUTION

I have been quite dark for the past year. By dark I mean I have not posted much and simply watched as the world passed by. This has been a volatile world and one that begs for commentary and, of course, commentary is everywhere, but it has not been from me.  I intend to change that.

The focus of what I write will be on words: I like words. I like what they say and mean and how they are misinterpreted. I will focus on many words that I feel are no longer part of our everyday life and need to be if we are to continue to be a first class country. Here are a few examples: Sacrifice, responsibility, accountability, arrogance, hypocrisy, evolution, love, respect, empathy, greed, corruption. This is a good start. Some of the words will be presented in ways that one could count me as angry, with an axe to grind, a failure of using the words on my own behalf. But, they would be wrong. Yes I am angry. I am disappointed and I feel like so many others do, who are unaccounted for in the vote, the opinion polls and the direction we are taking as a country and as a society.

We are, or have become, crass. We bloviate, we lie, we use rhetoric as the truth, we are uncaring and we are selfish. A new word that has gotten a lot of traction this year is entitled. Where does anyone get the sense that they are entitled to something others are not. If what they have they earned, good for them. But does that success need to be at the expense of others who did not achieve such success? I say no. But that sentiment is out there and is becoming more pervasive as more people, even those without their own earned success feel entitled based on their gender, location, color, education etc. These are attributes and characteristics that are earned and in many cases are biologically given. They are not excuses nor reasons for feelings of superiority or rights of oppression over others.

I will also endeavor to cover the institutions that we all live with. They include all forms of government from DC to the local level, regulators, business organizations, Wall Street, religions and the IRS.

There is much to write about and I will get to it as soon and as often as I can. Please join me in sharing your commentary as I hope it will be you who I hope to represent on these pages.

Have a nice holiday and I will see you after Christmas.

FOLLOWING THE RULES

Like most people I have been following the news surrounding the controversy over Tom Brady and the New England Patriots football team regarding the use of deflated footballs used in the AFC league championship game.

The discussion all week has gone back and forth about whether it is really cheating, followed by should there be a penalty, and if there is to be one, how big.

What shocks me most is the casual attitude many people have today concerning a clear case of cheating. One argument is there is cheating going on in other sports and, in this case, how bad was it?  We are confronted with steroids, pain medications and other artificial substances that theoretically give one athlete an edge over another. If cheating is to be tolerated at any level why have rules in the first place. If we accept one form of cheating why not accept them all?

The strength and appeal of all sport is its unpredictable outcome coupled with the competitive skills and psychological preparedness of one team versus another.  We all know we feel emotionally better one day versus another and while everything seems to work on those days, there are those other days where the reverse occurs. If one team uses drugs to alter mood it easily gives them an unequal advantage. Is that not cheating? If one team changes the tools of the game, such as the ball pressure, or spit on a baseball without the other team knowing it, is that also not cheating?

Cheating is cheating but it appears far too many people rationalize cheating when it is in their best interest.

There is however one sport that continues to rely on rules, where it’s participants follows them to the letter and hold everyone else accountable. That sport is golf.  

Why are rules in golf important, because everyone plays by them and expects everyone else to do the same?  More so every player is responsible to the entire field of players for any rule violation that takes place. It is the responsibility of every player to notify their competitors of any rules violation and ask them to accept the penalty. As a player we all know that anywhere on the course whether we can see it or not everyone is following the same rules because everyone on the course is essentially a rules official.  

If you play golf with people who cheat, you see it and don’t report it to the officials, you are harming the rest of the field of players. If you play with people who know the rules and still cheat then you can be assured they do so in other areas of their life. Don’t play them in a match and, for sure, don’t play them for money.     

Golf is an emotional game. Feel good and you may play above your ability, feel not so good and you may drop down a stroke or two.  You have to accept which player in you shows up each time you play. You still have to abide by the rules and cannot alter your mood through any artificial device.

Most golfers call violations of the rules on them selves when they make a mistake and for those who don’t there are other playing partners prepared to do so.

Take one of the easiest and seemingly least offensive rules to break: moving the ball. True moving a ball gives the player a better opportunity but measure the actual distance and it is marginal so why make such a deal out of it? Simple: When you control where the ball lies, your confidence goes up. Hitting it becomes far easier than when you have no control over where it lies. Moving a ball before hitting it is one of the most sacrosanct rules in the game. Every player knows it and every player abides by it.

I doubt it is any different when a quarterback alters the weight of a football, especially when their competitors don’t know about it.  The QB does.

This is what rules are about. The game of golf is a game played by millions of people around the world and the same rules exist for all of them. It is a beautiful thing to play a sport that has such integrity. To meet total strangers anywhere in the world, tee it up and know we will play an honest game, follow the same rules and compete on an equal footing. 

The rules of the game make it competitive, honest and true.

Other sports are demeaning themselves by accepting the corrosive elements of cheating. Eventually every sport that does not stand up for integrity in their game will eventually lose their base and their game will decline in value. 

RIGHT TO LIFE

Right to Life advocates have a valid point. They believe life begins at conception. The idea of abortion is anathema to them.  But women who are considering an abortion don't want to be pregnant and by proxy probably don't want a child.

So the debate comes down to should a woman not wanting to be a parent or a parent again bring a child into the world that will, no doubt, be unwanted.  Therein lies the problem. The child. A child not wanted from birth most likely will not be raised by a loving, supportive two parent family. The child will know this instinctively at first and intellectually as it grows up. That child will more likely get involved in drugs, gangs, fail to finish high school and, quite possibly, end up in prison. The likelihood that child will find a job, get married, raise a family, pay taxes and generally be a good neighbor and citizen are practically zero. If anything they will learn early in life how to game the system. How to get welfare, food stamps, government assistance and not work or pay taxes. They will also quite possibly have children of their own without any sense of responsibility and only continue to exacerbate the circle of unwanted pregnancies and children.

Now, that unwanted child, as a possible ward of the state, is openly and harshly criticized by the very same people who insisted they be brought to life. The complaints are always the same. Why don't "these people" get jobs, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become productive members of society? Easy questions to ask but difficult to answer. When the odds are as stacked against someone raised in a hostile, non loving environment are as intense as they are for many of these young people we are naive to think they have the tools to be solid members of society.

It is quite OK to profess a right to life position but those who do have to understand the consequence of their opinion and be prepared to support the child later in its life when the benefits of birth have eluded them for their entire life. Right to Life should include right to a fair and equal opportunity life.

JAIL FOR SENATORS

When is enough enough?  The Republicans have tried to scuttle the Affordable Care Act over 50 times always with the knowledge that if they did their actions would be vetoed. Added to their waste of time is they have no alternative plan.  Zero. They haven't had a plan since President Obama was elected

Next, they go to the Supreme Court, that third republican party, that is possibly going to over turn the act due to a misunderstanding in the language that in reality is absolutely no misunderstanding. If the Republicans are successful millions of Americans will be out of insurance and will have no coverage. Who will take care of their issues? Not the Republicans because they, again, have zero ideas of what to do.

Next, they invite the Israel president to speak to a joint session of Congress. In my opinion that invitation should be viewed as treason. Why invite him? To make the president look bad. Why? because he is black. t
The Israel president was a backer of the Iraq war we entered into under false pretenses. That has resulted in ISIS. Aren't we happy about that move?

And now? 47 Senators, all Republicans write a letter to Iran invalidating the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Fortunately the Iranians sent a letter back explaining the US constitution to these Republican morons. He also mentioned that the negotiations are with 5 countries not just the United States. And the president can make a deal, without oversight from the lame ducks in congress.

We have to get over ourselves and start doing the things we did in the past that made us great.

Right now we look like fools and act worse.

SCREENERS

There are two kinds of movies being viewed by academy members. One is in the theater and the other is  “the screener” to be watched at home or on any number of other devices. While the screener makes it vastly more convenient for members to view more films and have a more comprehensive overview of the films up for consideration it takes away virtually every element of the film that was created, at considerable expense, by a team of creative artists with the sole purpose of emotionally moving their audience.  Screeners can’t do that.

In the theater all distractions are removed. Announcements are made to mute or disconnect cell phones to avoid distracting others there to get lost in the film. The room is dark, everyone is facing the same direction so we are unable to see others tear up, hold their breadth, clutch the hand of their seatmates or just let their emotions out for 100 minute holiday. There are no pauses, rewinds, bathroom breaks, and changes in lighting, heating or food choices.  People are in their seats and presumably will not move for the entire film.

That is what the filmmakers had in mind when they made the film and that is what the audience is entitled to if they are willing to pay the admission price or are legitimately considering the performances and/ or the film for the industry’s top honor.

The single most significant element to a film’s success is how well it does in a theater. Marketers spend enormous sums of money to promote the in theater experience.   Success in the theater virtually guarantees success in video, cable, broadcast and countless overseas markets.  Add to the success in the theater, a number of marketable Oscars and the film is on to levels of income and profit unimaginable in most other industries.

In the foreign language category the voters have to see ALL the entries. I have academy friends who literally camp out at the Academy viewing as many as 50 or more films in order to cast their vote.

It is unfair for film makers to have their films which can be truly life altering, judged on TV sets, of questionable quality, an airline, a phone or a laptop.

If the intended feelings are not connected with the films audience the results in all down stream revenue will be negatively impacted and that hurts everyone.

I say it is time for the Academy to rethink its voting mechanism. Get more people seeing more films in the theater.

EQUALIZATION

David Brooks, of the New York Times, has a piece in this mornings paper, (October 10, 2014) making the point that when Citizens United was passed by the supreme court there were Democrats who felt the end of their party was at hand. Now several years later, according to Brooks, the monies spent by the Democrats are equal to, or even greater than, those being spent by the Republicans. In fact, according to his research, many of the candidates that lost elections actually had more money spent on their campaign than their opponents. So in Brook’s opinion the court’s ruling has not negatively impacted the election process in the way it was predicted to.

 I disagree. The truth is money has done more damage to the entire electoral process, and by implication, more to the detriment of our country, even if it has not resulted in getting people elected.

The fallacy in Brook’s argument goes to a concept I call equalization. That is if everyone spends the same amount of money on something it is the same as no one spending anything on it. Think about it, I spend one million to get my candidate elected and you spend half of that on your candidate, I have an advantage. But if you spend the same million as I do then we are equal and it will not be the amount of monies spent on the candidates but rather the message brought forth by each of them.

The real problem with Citizens United is it falsely gives the impression that the most money spent on one candidate versus another will actually win elections.  This theory has resulted in far too many people, with too much money to waste, coupled with their own personal agendas, spending foolish amounts of money on candidates that have no better chance at winning, if the other side spends the same amount on their candidate.

I often think of performance enhancing drugs, (PED’s), in sports. The athlete thinks taking drugs helps his/her cause by enhancing their performance.  But what happens if ALL athletes take the same drugs? Are we not back to square one? What the athlete using drugs is really saying is “I will take PED’s on the condition you don’t.  That way I do have an advantage”. In the end if everyone takes them it will be the same as if no one took them. It is cheating by looking for an artificial advantage not related to talent but requires secrecy so no one else does the same thing. Otherwise it makes no sense.

What Citizens United has done is to vastly increase the amount of money spent on elections under the false impression that the more spent will result in more winners, while it has taken out of the process the qualifications, ideas, strategies and plans of the candidates and replaced them with an addiction to raising money.

If the premise that more money breeds more winners was dropped by all candidates, they would spend less money, need less time to raise more and could focus on sharing their positive message with voters rather than overwhelming the voter with negative advertising focused on the other candidate’s shortcomings. 

 No, my argument with David Brooks is that money really has corrupted the election process. It has forced all elected officials and candidates into the delusion that the object of politics is raising money rather than solving problems. And, that is a disservice to all Americans.      

OBESITY

If you want to know how I feel don’t ask me just look at me and see if I have gained weight.

For me, as I am sure for many others, when I don’t feel good, for any number of reasons I gain weight. I am not speaking about having a cold, or a runny nose or even something a bit more serious. What I am referring to is how do I feel emotionally, maybe a little stressed.  When I am in turmoil it is easier to gain weight, as the discipline to diet does not seem as important when compared to the other challenges I face. When back on track losing the weight is so much simpler.

As much as we read about the obesity problem in the country, if not the world, the answers given often reside in a form of surgery or a pill or a specific diet of more, or less, protein, fat, carbs etc. The advice is endless and the books for the newest fad diets keep coming yet all the remedies, for the most part, over time, fall on deaf ears.

The real culprit for the obesity in this country resides right smack in the middle of the essence of what ails the country in the first place.  People are unhappy.

Yes, it is true. People are unhappy. Far too many of us are uneducated, poor, in debt, hungry, divorced, homeless, addicted to a variety of substances and live with a very low level of hope.

Add to the social dilemmas facing people the lack of available healthy food, the cost of it, an overwhelming number of television ads pushing unhealthy foods, the fact that going on a successful diet takes herculean discipline, unnatural patience and the energy to focus on your diet in the face of every other obstacle in your life and it is easy to understand why people would rather eat than diet.

Losing weight is literally not doable given what many of the obese face every day.  The fact of denial alone, a must in a diet, will kill it for many. Faced with so many unresolved issues why deny the smallest of pleasures through a cheeseburger, fries and a shake? McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Pollo Loco and so many other high calorie, low quality franchises are located with walking distance of most of the troubled neighborhoods. The food is comfort: high calorie, high fat, high carbs, high sodium and plenty of sugar. What is not to like? Everything bad about it tastes good. When finished everything bad about it is packed on the body and when it finally shows the motivation to take it off is very low.

Much is discussed about the differences between the 1% and the rest of the country but it is true the 1% can afford to enjoy many of life’s pleasures, good food, in fine restaurants, travel, physical activities and a warm, hospitable roof over their heads.  Those facing the hardships of the above cannot afford to do most of these things and their only recourse, other than resentment, frustration and anger is to eat all the wrong foods and way too many of them. 

If we really want to solve the problem of obesity we must look much deeper into the real causes for it, hopelessness.

As long as people feel they have no chance of getting a job, a better job, getting out of debt, putting their kids in a good school, securing a mortgage, having a home, proper health care coverage, a chance to get above it all and not have to live from one pay check to another they will just remain unhappy. 

For them one easy answer is poor choices in what to eat. Low quality food choices are affordable, available and why not, they taste good and that feels good. 

Does anyone wonder why heroin use is up, alcohol consumption is up, drugs of all types are up, and use of painkillers is up? What do you think they are trying to get away from?  Could it be they don’t like their lives, don’t feel there is much chance for them or that maybe they feel they have been left behind? These are insidious feelings and when push comes to shove people will more easily give into feelings than they will ever give in to an intellectual argument that requires sacrifice, discipline and willpower. Dig down into individual substance abuse and there will be a story, a story of a life being led that offers little to no sense of satisfaction.

We can solve the problem of obesity and reduce what it costs us simply by focusing our energies on solving the real problems that make people unhappy.  We know what they are so why not get down to business and solve them?

  

SUNDAY MORNING TV

I am not a viewer of the Sunday morning political talk shows. I find them far too polarized and therefore not very productive. For some reason, maybe it was waiting for breakfast, I turned on Face the Nation. I quickly realized what I deplore about what has happened to our country and why I don’t watch these shows.

A little background: among several others the guests included Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minster of Israel, discussing the serious military engagement between his country and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Governor Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, discussing the also very serious issue of the South American children flooding the southern borders of the United States.

In the case of Netanyahu his points were clear, concise and to the point. He answered the questions of civilians being killed or wounded in Gaza and the Israeli position on how they are attempting to minimize them while at the same time continuing to pursue their objectives, he spoke to what his long goals were, what he thought of the possibilities of a long term peace agreement and he also discussed in detail the involvement of Iran and how it should be forced to stop developing nuclear capabilities, which he is certain will be used only for atomic weapon capabilities.

Then came Rick Perry. His entire position, when asked about the problems on the borders, was about how President Obama is not a good leader. He referenced every political talking point he could cram into his few minutes on camera. Did he have a single idea on what should be done TODAY? What should we do as a nation, what Texas could do as a state, how we could afford, or not, to pay for a solution, how should we deal with the countries that are torturing, raping and killing their own citizens and forcing them to flee to our borders? NO. Not one single idea.

This is by no means a criticism of Mr. Perry, although I guess it really is, but it is a criticism of how ALL of our leaders in both parties are only interested in the politics of virtually every single problem. Forget solutions, it is Bush’s fault, the conservatives, and the liberals, Obama etc. etc. Don’t waste time or interest in pursuing solutions when it is far easier to mimic others in the party with the political rhetoric that pervades everything today.

When running for office I say bring it on. Criticize, place blame, brag about yourself, scorn your opponents etc. It is all fair game. However when elected go to DC and do the job you were elected to do. Get to work, identify the problems, seek consensus and then solve them. Fix the economy, put in place an immigration plan, reconcile rights issues, focus on education, climate, environment etc.

It is too important to this country to ignore our problems in an effort to always be right.  Our government is run by people who think their only job, repeat, ONLY JOB is to get re-elected. We are allowing “elected” representatives to drown our country in political nonsense while overlooking the serious impediments to our future.

Right now we are not prepared for the future, we will not keep up with the rest of the world and we will devolve into a second rate nation and have all the current political representatives to thank for our failure. Do we want that? I know I don’t.