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.

CORPORATE RIGHTS

Here is something I don't get: corporations are people according to the supreme court in Citizens United and can therefore donate however much money they want, anonymously if they choose, to the political candidate of their choice. They can also dictate the terms of employment based on their own religious beliefs again according to the supreme court in the Hobby Lobby case ruled on yesterday.  Correspondingly, if one was to listen to the corporate spokespeople carefully their most important responsibility is to their shareholders by generating  the greatest profits possible.

Then why when they commit a crime, such as BNP Paribas did by doing deals with Iran and other blacklisted companies, did no one go to jail and, since they agreed to pay a whopping $8.9 billion in fines, which is a lot of money did not one executive lose their job?

The hypocrisy in corporate governance is unbelievable. Should a company be forced to pay a fine due to unlawful activities several executives should be terminated, without cause and done so without the golden parachutes they all enjoy. And, if they are found guilty they should have to admit to it and someone should be convicted of the crime and do time in jail.

Then we could view them as persons and they could operate like all other persons do. They would take responsibility for their actions and pay the consequences when their choices or decisions are against the law. I suspect if the loss of livelihood and/or jail time were on the table there would be a lot less shenanigans going on in corporate America.