Let me preface this article with a few qualifications. I am not an economist and don’t pretend to be one. The following is also major oversimplification of the problems we face today. What’s written here is not meant to inflame you. You are expected to think.
With all the recent talk about outsourcing, trade deficits and unemployment (or under-employment), you’d wonder if folks were really thinking about solutions to the problem. Human nature seems to always include certain amounts of complaining or whining for at least as long as it takes to find something else that hurts just as bad or worse.
Some persons tend to attack a leader (or two) for their immigration or economic policy decisions but rarely do many of us look a little closer to home for the real source of America’s economic woes. This attack strategy might satisfy political agendas for some of us, but do personal attacks do anything to resolve the real problem? Poor Democrats are likely to be just as unhappy as poor Republicans (except that poor Democrats think that the government should resolve their problems for them). For all the poor offended liberals out there, that was a joke. ;-)~ Seriously now, the answer isn’t just to blame all the world’s problems on George W. Bush or Alan Greenspan.
Imagine two steady streams, one that includes airplanes, overseas freight containers and boat- (or car) loads full of refugees or foreign goods (or illegal drugs) destined for American cities. The second stream is made up of American currency, technologies or jobs. Both of these flows work towards America’s disadvantage. Add to that the imports of natural resources like oil from the Middle East, so that we can pollute our lands. Yes, sometimes the tides change but more often than not the flow is in one direction (from supply to demand).
Now some Arabs (or radical Muslims) are “offended” when we try to keep the peace or maintain economic stability in the Middle East by deposing an occasional tyrant or oppressive government. Think of it this way, Americans actually pay the Arabs for oil so that we can trash our own backyards and air with petroleum products and so that we can fight their wars for them. Or in case no one noticed, our dependency on foreign petroleum is what motivated us to do the things that inflamed some groups to resort to terrorist attacks on the US. Doesn’t this kind of observation make you want to think twice about leaving your car to idle in the parking lot while you duck into a store to purchase a gallon of milk? How much is all this oil really costing us? Turn your thermostat down now!
Consider how much oil is used for transporting these endless supplies of consumables that other nations are dumping on American consumers while we shut down domestic textile mills, electronics factories and manufacturing plants. It’s foreign oil in those vehicles (trains, planes, boats and automobiles) that fuels the seeds of our economic demise. Is it time to start thinking about using alternative fuels anyone? How about some conservation (transportation reduction?) strategies too?
Add up all the ways that we spend money on foreign products and you begin to understand how and why many of your hard earned American dollars are leaving the country. Our economy is leaking currency (and jobs) like a sieve.
Enough moaning. What should Americans do about such things?
How about take advantage of the information age and the benefits of new technologies (or the Internet)? If your job doesn’t require you to be at a workstation assembling widgets, flipping burgers or digging ditches and it can be performed online, work at home. Use broadband and the telephone when you can. Don’t burn fuel making two extra trips around the parking lot so that you walk 30 feet less to the door. Enjoy the exercise. Buy your next home closer to where you work!
Buy American products when you can. If you don’t know the country of origin of the products you purchase, remind your retailer that these things are important to you. Don’t forget to take your business to merchants who know the difference between domestically produced products and foreign made goods (and label their inventories accordingly). This doesn’t mean that you can’t or shouldn’t purchase foreign made products at all, but that you should consider these things in the price that you pay for every product. Buy quality! Obviously real beer lovers wouldn't consider purchasing a pint of Guinness Irish Stout brewed in New York City. Smart buyers understand that good stuff breaks less often and costs you less in the long run. That could ultimately mean less trash in the landfill and fewer trips to the store for replacement products or exchanges.
Don’t employ illegal aliens or persons who are working “off the grid”. Unemployment taxes and social security don’t work unless everyone pays their "fair share" or builds up some equity in the system. Freeloaders should not be encouraged to enter or apply for work in America. This doesn’t mean that we need to turn away every close relative of an “anchor child” because of his or her country of origin, but what is it about an “illegal” immigration status that employers don’t understand? Americans need to observe a “don’t feed the bears” kind of policy with regards to illegal immigrants. This will save the border patrol a lot of work. This is not just a "border control problem". If you really want to prevent illegal immigration you have to remove the motivators (American jobs, American currency and American entitlements) for those that might benefit from such things. Building walls on our borders or employing more border patrol agents doesn’t add to the GNP either. Deport these illegal persons (poor and quickly) or tax them out, so that their equity in the system can reach the same levels as citizens (before they empty the treasury).
Don’t buy illegal drugs. These (illegal) purchases only encourage more illegal immigration. Drug purchases add to trade deficits. Drug abuse puts more Americans in prison when they are reduced to stealing or other criminal activities to support their habits. Persons who are addicted to illegal drugs cause harm to them-selves and are often unemployable. This harm that drug addicts do to themselves also affects others. Prison inmates cost taxpayers big money and represent a drag on the GNP. This says nothing about what the costs are when your neighbors kid gets high and kills a police officer, a teacher or another student (by accident?).
If you can’t get work in a position you are trained for (surplussed, oursourced or fired), work at something else (retool or educate yourself?). Under-employment is still better than unemployment. Under-employed persons don’t have time to engage in crime or bad habits. Circulation (networking) inside the workforce can result in future employment connections and better jobs.
Yes, some of these suggestions will also involve some hard decisions by our leadership or a new strategy (or two). This doesn’t exempt "average Americans" from some personal responsibility. Use your money wisely. God forbid, we consider becoming more efficient consumers. Don’t make unnecessary purchases (i.e. illegal drugs) that will result in long-term costs to the economy or your reputation as a good employee. Purchase domestic products where you can and where this makes sense for you. The blame for any downturn in the American economy begins at home. We (consumers, employers and bureaucrats) need to think more carefully in terms of how our purchases will fund the entitlements or economic infrastructure we count on. Otherwise the flows of oil, illegal drugs, or illegal labor will always be against our best interests, and the flows of currency and jobs will most likely remain outbound.
Purchase American.com
http://www.purchaseamerican.com/links.htm
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
http://www.opec.org/
Center for Immigration Studies
http://www.cis.org/
Center Paper 23: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, by Steven A. Camarota, August 2004
Crime & the Illegal Alien: The Fallout from Crippled Immigration Enforcement,by Heather Mac Donald Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, June 2004
A Jobless Recovery? Immigrant Gains and Native Losses, by Steven A. CamarotaCenter for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, October 2004
The White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/index.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/employment.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/internationaltrade/
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Called thrice...
As a citizen who reads the news and watches many reports on television faithfully, I understand that reporters have to interview persons that they don’t know (or understand) and that contact with the public is not always an easy task. There is often competition from other media sources to get an exclusive or juicy tidbit and this raises the tension level for persons conducting the interview (and those that might be interviewed).
Reporters often don’t have the time or the resources to meet every person they interview and first contact with many potential “interviewees” is often made using the telephone. Sometimes this struggle for communication goes badly. One phone message left on a recorder could have been ignored or misinterpreted; a second represents a confirmation of sorts, that an offer is out there to be interviewed. Why would a reporter leave a third message for someone to respond when two previous messages had not been returned? This starts to cross that blurry line called “harassment”.
Reporters should not be immune to rules of conduct that would otherwise apply to any good citizen or professional (unless you subscribe to tabloid or paparazzi tactics/mentality). If you call persons and you are sure about the number you’ve called, by all means leave a (one) message. If no one answers and an answering machine will accept your message, it’s understood that any call worth making deserves at least one message, maybe two. So make them good (clear and concise) ones, in the interest of your time and theirs.
Answering machines or phone-mail have become a new mode of communication for just about every person who owns or has access to a telephone. Phone etiquette shouldn’t have to be written in stone, but leaving multiple messages of equal or lesser value for the recipient represents the equivalent of spam. More specifically, leaving multiple (3 or more) “call me” messages on someone’s answering machine for the purposes of soliciting an interview could easily be perceived as some kind of harassment.
Not to single out Demorris Lee of the Raleigh News and Observer, he is only a staff reporter who is doing what he believes to be his job, but would he be at least somewhat annoyed if every one of his contacts left multiple messages (at least 3) on his answering machine for every article or subject that he was to write about? Probably. Most persons only want one message from a single caller with pertinent contact information, some useful information and a question or two so that they can make a decision about whether or not to return the call to any persons who leave messages. Leaving two messages is certainly forgivable. Three messages means that someone is wasting their time (and/or someone else’s), or starting to.
Whatever code of conduct that reporters subscribe to at the N&O is probably not unusual. There’s no joy in singling out a single newspaper or reporter. Not every phone call a reporter makes deserves a response either. Not all persons (sources) involved in a story have the time or inclination to make an official statement concerning recent events. It also deserves to be noticed that when a reporter calls on what could be one of the worst days of a persons life about something they’ve not completely assimilated in their own mind, that these persons will not (and should not) respond (or be forced to) say something that might later be regretted.
I understand District Attorney Jim Hardin’s decision not to pursue this (harrassment charge?) issue in court and support him. I also understand that Staff Reporter Demorris Lee has a professional obligation to fairly report on the persons and events he has been assigned. The Raleigh Police shouldn't be faulted for not scheduling an appointment during business hours to arrest Mr. Lee either. These events do not mean that every potential interviewee should be called or courted thrice for every interview or that persons that receive messages from him (or other media persons) are obligated to return a “no comment”.
What this means is, that when we decide to communicate with each other as human beings, it should not instantly become an adversarial situation. First time contacts with persons you don’t know aren’t based on love or trust, and they can often be awkward (especially after experiencing some form of victimization). If some of us (victims?) act with occasional reservation or reluctance that is normal and should be expected. Some persons will require time and additional information before they are going to be ready to comment for reporters.
When you reach into someone’s home and leave a message, it’s worth doing this carefully. The content or tone of the messages left behind may not be inflammatory or intended to cause irritation, but the frequency of certain messages can be perceived to be.
These issues shouldn't have to be settled in court. Potential news sources (victims?) shouldn't be burdened with having to understand the nuances of the "escalation process" or management structure of a newspaper if they have a problem with a staff reporter either. After all, it wasn't Ruth A. Brown's choice to be the "news piece of the day". Unfortunately, in this all too litiguous society that we live in, it might sometimes be necessary to escalate with the help of police when the public is "harrassed" by the media.
Just maybe such an "escalation" was not appropriate this time... (did a magistrate suggest contacting newspaper editors first, before signing an arrest warrant?). Hopefully all parties involved are wiser for this recent experience.
Calls hardly a crime
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/sill/story/1877013p-8210313c.html
Hardin's good call
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1871396p-8205740c.html
Reporters often don’t have the time or the resources to meet every person they interview and first contact with many potential “interviewees” is often made using the telephone. Sometimes this struggle for communication goes badly. One phone message left on a recorder could have been ignored or misinterpreted; a second represents a confirmation of sorts, that an offer is out there to be interviewed. Why would a reporter leave a third message for someone to respond when two previous messages had not been returned? This starts to cross that blurry line called “harassment”.
Reporters should not be immune to rules of conduct that would otherwise apply to any good citizen or professional (unless you subscribe to tabloid or paparazzi tactics/mentality). If you call persons and you are sure about the number you’ve called, by all means leave a (one) message. If no one answers and an answering machine will accept your message, it’s understood that any call worth making deserves at least one message, maybe two. So make them good (clear and concise) ones, in the interest of your time and theirs.
Answering machines or phone-mail have become a new mode of communication for just about every person who owns or has access to a telephone. Phone etiquette shouldn’t have to be written in stone, but leaving multiple messages of equal or lesser value for the recipient represents the equivalent of spam. More specifically, leaving multiple (3 or more) “call me” messages on someone’s answering machine for the purposes of soliciting an interview could easily be perceived as some kind of harassment.
Not to single out Demorris Lee of the Raleigh News and Observer, he is only a staff reporter who is doing what he believes to be his job, but would he be at least somewhat annoyed if every one of his contacts left multiple messages (at least 3) on his answering machine for every article or subject that he was to write about? Probably. Most persons only want one message from a single caller with pertinent contact information, some useful information and a question or two so that they can make a decision about whether or not to return the call to any persons who leave messages. Leaving two messages is certainly forgivable. Three messages means that someone is wasting their time (and/or someone else’s), or starting to.
Whatever code of conduct that reporters subscribe to at the N&O is probably not unusual. There’s no joy in singling out a single newspaper or reporter. Not every phone call a reporter makes deserves a response either. Not all persons (sources) involved in a story have the time or inclination to make an official statement concerning recent events. It also deserves to be noticed that when a reporter calls on what could be one of the worst days of a persons life about something they’ve not completely assimilated in their own mind, that these persons will not (and should not) respond (or be forced to) say something that might later be regretted.
I understand District Attorney Jim Hardin’s decision not to pursue this (harrassment charge?) issue in court and support him. I also understand that Staff Reporter Demorris Lee has a professional obligation to fairly report on the persons and events he has been assigned. The Raleigh Police shouldn't be faulted for not scheduling an appointment during business hours to arrest Mr. Lee either. These events do not mean that every potential interviewee should be called or courted thrice for every interview or that persons that receive messages from him (or other media persons) are obligated to return a “no comment”.
What this means is, that when we decide to communicate with each other as human beings, it should not instantly become an adversarial situation. First time contacts with persons you don’t know aren’t based on love or trust, and they can often be awkward (especially after experiencing some form of victimization). If some of us (victims?) act with occasional reservation or reluctance that is normal and should be expected. Some persons will require time and additional information before they are going to be ready to comment for reporters.
When you reach into someone’s home and leave a message, it’s worth doing this carefully. The content or tone of the messages left behind may not be inflammatory or intended to cause irritation, but the frequency of certain messages can be perceived to be.
These issues shouldn't have to be settled in court. Potential news sources (victims?) shouldn't be burdened with having to understand the nuances of the "escalation process" or management structure of a newspaper if they have a problem with a staff reporter either. After all, it wasn't Ruth A. Brown's choice to be the "news piece of the day". Unfortunately, in this all too litiguous society that we live in, it might sometimes be necessary to escalate with the help of police when the public is "harrassed" by the media.
Just maybe such an "escalation" was not appropriate this time... (did a magistrate suggest contacting newspaper editors first, before signing an arrest warrant?). Hopefully all parties involved are wiser for this recent experience.
Calls hardly a crime
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/sill/story/1877013p-8210313c.html
Hardin's good call
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1871396p-8205740c.html
Monday, November 22, 2004
Responsible Parenting... responsible children
Recent news articles and court testimony have given light to the relative depravity that many children grow up in today (not just recently convicted 1st degree murderer, Matthew Grant). If all too often, some of us become (biological) parents and fail miserably at "parenting" due to different inabilities or fall prey to apathetic justifications and rarely (or seriously) consider the option of placing their unfortunate offspring in adoptive homes, why should society pay the full price or consider giving many youthful offenders who murder a second chance? God forbid some persons even consider enduring (even the thought) temporary abstinence or using some means of contraception. Morality issues aside, why wouldn't one keep up with ith one's own responsibilities (including children)?
A strong sense of entitlement combined with an obvious tendency towards attention deficit or focus on instant gratification seems pervasive. And we Americans think ourselves capable of correcting other societies in other hemispheres or nations when we preach our “do as we say, not as we do” philosophy? Is it any wonder that the radical Muslims call us “infidels”? Go figure.
Just because "misfit parents" propagate as a result of their indifference or ignorance, or "misfit children" are born, that doesn’t mean that this “devils spawn” is entitled to rape, rob or in some cases murder. By the same token, if a child grows up with a silver spoon in its mouth and exists off large bank accounts until the last day of its 17th year, that doesn’t mean adult offspring of rich parents are entitled to go to “critical mass” and murder their stock broker when market takes a dive. We have “prisons to fill” for persons who don’t and won’t (not just can’t) respect the law.
Society pays when persons aren’t accountable for their own actions and won’t do the right things. The “instant apology” syndrome or tendency for settling out of court amounts to a “Nintendo mentality” of sorts. Some things (like murder) are permanent and you can’t just “hit the reset button” where all things are instantly “fair and forgiven”. We can fill our hospitals and prisons full of “human detritus” or leave these issues to God but that doesn’t address the source of the problem.
There’s a redneck bumper sticker out there that reads “If you can’t feed them, don’t breed them” or something along that line. In case no one noticed, most of these (human?) misfits don’t leave the gene pool; they tend more often to “add to it” (disproportionately?). Hasn’t our society learned any lessons from issues such as teenage pregnancy, AIDS and the increasing prison populations? The world doesn’t need more people or more devils or more devils advocates (trial lawyers or defendants?) or to be turned into a large trailer park. The "redeneck bumper sticker" that many of us snicker at, leaves even educated persons pondering notions of what parents inflict upon their children when they fail to be responsible parents. Or it should...
The “abused child defense” just doesn’t wash with me. Other persons have suffered more miserably in their lifetimes and flourished. Matthew Grant is no child, at least not any more. He knew what the consequences for pulling the trigger of a loaded shotgun in a deputy’s face, were. Now he will have to live with (or die by) his choices. Thankfully, he won’t be allowed to add more children like himself to the equation. The cycle must be broken. If your child’s only “personality injection”, is the kind that he might experience after stepping up on a gurney on North Carolina’s death row, don’t have him. Prospective mothers and fathers need to remove themselves from the gene pool (consider sterilization?) and not have offspring they can't (or won't) feed and care for. If and when your childs best defense ends up being your own personal failure as a parent, it's too damn late (for them, for their victims and society).
WRAL, Biological Mother Testifies In Grant Murder Trial, POSTED: 12:38 pm EST November 12, 2004 http://www.wral.com/news/3914334/detail.html
A strong sense of entitlement combined with an obvious tendency towards attention deficit or focus on instant gratification seems pervasive. And we Americans think ourselves capable of correcting other societies in other hemispheres or nations when we preach our “do as we say, not as we do” philosophy? Is it any wonder that the radical Muslims call us “infidels”? Go figure.
Just because "misfit parents" propagate as a result of their indifference or ignorance, or "misfit children" are born, that doesn’t mean that this “devils spawn” is entitled to rape, rob or in some cases murder. By the same token, if a child grows up with a silver spoon in its mouth and exists off large bank accounts until the last day of its 17th year, that doesn’t mean adult offspring of rich parents are entitled to go to “critical mass” and murder their stock broker when market takes a dive. We have “prisons to fill” for persons who don’t and won’t (not just can’t) respect the law.
Society pays when persons aren’t accountable for their own actions and won’t do the right things. The “instant apology” syndrome or tendency for settling out of court amounts to a “Nintendo mentality” of sorts. Some things (like murder) are permanent and you can’t just “hit the reset button” where all things are instantly “fair and forgiven”. We can fill our hospitals and prisons full of “human detritus” or leave these issues to God but that doesn’t address the source of the problem.
There’s a redneck bumper sticker out there that reads “If you can’t feed them, don’t breed them” or something along that line. In case no one noticed, most of these (human?) misfits don’t leave the gene pool; they tend more often to “add to it” (disproportionately?). Hasn’t our society learned any lessons from issues such as teenage pregnancy, AIDS and the increasing prison populations? The world doesn’t need more people or more devils or more devils advocates (trial lawyers or defendants?) or to be turned into a large trailer park. The "redeneck bumper sticker" that many of us snicker at, leaves even educated persons pondering notions of what parents inflict upon their children when they fail to be responsible parents. Or it should...
The “abused child defense” just doesn’t wash with me. Other persons have suffered more miserably in their lifetimes and flourished. Matthew Grant is no child, at least not any more. He knew what the consequences for pulling the trigger of a loaded shotgun in a deputy’s face, were. Now he will have to live with (or die by) his choices. Thankfully, he won’t be allowed to add more children like himself to the equation. The cycle must be broken. If your child’s only “personality injection”, is the kind that he might experience after stepping up on a gurney on North Carolina’s death row, don’t have him. Prospective mothers and fathers need to remove themselves from the gene pool (consider sterilization?) and not have offspring they can't (or won't) feed and care for. If and when your childs best defense ends up being your own personal failure as a parent, it's too damn late (for them, for their victims and society).
WRAL, Biological Mother Testifies In Grant Murder Trial, POSTED: 12:38 pm EST November 12, 2004 http://www.wral.com/news/3914334/detail.html
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Post Election Stress
Not so long ago, I was made aware of a website where just about anyone who decided to could post pictures of themselves or whatever else they wanted, to protest the reelection of President Bush. Now I’ve not until recent years become cognizant of what labels I might wear politically speaking and the link was a sent to me as a joke. Or at least that’s the impression I’ve been left with.
The idea of using bandwidth and server space to send a message is nothing new to me. I’ve worked for a large computer company for 20 years now, so you’ll have to excuse me if I look at these little protests from a different perspective. My computing skills are nothing to brag about but the idea of sending email and sending files to other persons and sharing electronic messages and data of all kinds began for me in 1986. The modems and other equipment were a lot slower and the datasets a lot smaller then but the idea of sharing information and ideas was still pretty much the same. We’ve supposedly just gotten better at it over time.
My first impression about the “protest website” was to laugh and say to myself that it’s a great way to share a common message or way of thinking, to create a website and make a graphic statement about your feelings about a candidate. Then I started to look at how the persons who used the tool (or the Internet) chose to communicate.
Many of the pictures posted represented some kind of lame apology for the results of the election or the words “I’m sorry” and a mug shot of the disgruntled constituent. Viewing these pictures left me wondering about those poor individuals. Are they whining or just taking part in some kind of mass exhibitionist event? “Sorry” is obviously the “action word” in their protest. And sorry they are, in more than one sense of the word; because their “regrets” if that’s what they are, accomplish absolutely nothing.
Some of the posts represented outright insults or objections to the military action in the Middle East (as if it were all completely unavoidable) by the United States with no obvious suggestions about what other viable options are available or a constructive comment. Don’t get me wrong, some of the pictures required some serious thought and were truly creative (even pretty) but they all failed to make the next step, which was to offer something of substance or something positive or even some direction (however misguided).
My observations eventually led me to believe that all these liberal protesters were whining (some crying). Many were merely exercising their rights of free speech, while others were more “mean-spirited”. The idea behind the website, seems to be that, somehow by aggregating all of these similarly minded (of many well meaning but misguided?) persons and images, they might instantly become more relevant. Frankly, I doubt that conservative constituents would have been as sore about losing an election as this group has been. The common theme of these protests was “sorry” and the tendency to “whine”. Maybe they should start a support group?
Don’t misunderstand what I am trying to say here. Yes, sometimes all we know to do is complain. And complain we must sometimes, or others will never know or appreciate the source or the cause of the complaints. But these persons have other choices. One can’t deny the results of the elections at this late date. The folks need to “Move On” so to speak. The current administration is not the end of the world for Americans, and the majority of us are inclined to support our leaders as has been indicated (some say overwhelmingly so) in the elections.
Aren’t these “protesters” just one-step away from those who would actually remove a yard sign for a conservative candidate? And two steps away from becoming an anarchist? Haven’t these persons by their actions (and their whining) made less of their politics by failing to offer tangible solutions with their objections to the recently re-elected president or by engaging in attacks of a more personal nature (name calling etc)? In doing what these persons have done, haven’t these persons made “a joke of themselves” in a majority of these cases?
Sometimes I wonder what the state of our nation would be in if the elections had gone the way these persons wanted… haven’t these people learned that if a message is worth sending out to the rest of the world, it should be worth repeating, or represent something joyous or remotely useful? Or are liberals the only ones I’ve recently seen wasting server space and bandwidth (personal and Internet related)? If we (Americans) are going to get any better at spreading the word about the benefits of free speech, maybe we shouldn’t waste so much time on “whining”.
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4141857
http://www.wral.com/news/3804934/detail.html
http://www.wral.com/news/3897036/detail.html
The idea of using bandwidth and server space to send a message is nothing new to me. I’ve worked for a large computer company for 20 years now, so you’ll have to excuse me if I look at these little protests from a different perspective. My computing skills are nothing to brag about but the idea of sending email and sending files to other persons and sharing electronic messages and data of all kinds began for me in 1986. The modems and other equipment were a lot slower and the datasets a lot smaller then but the idea of sharing information and ideas was still pretty much the same. We’ve supposedly just gotten better at it over time.
My first impression about the “protest website” was to laugh and say to myself that it’s a great way to share a common message or way of thinking, to create a website and make a graphic statement about your feelings about a candidate. Then I started to look at how the persons who used the tool (or the Internet) chose to communicate.
Many of the pictures posted represented some kind of lame apology for the results of the election or the words “I’m sorry” and a mug shot of the disgruntled constituent. Viewing these pictures left me wondering about those poor individuals. Are they whining or just taking part in some kind of mass exhibitionist event? “Sorry” is obviously the “action word” in their protest. And sorry they are, in more than one sense of the word; because their “regrets” if that’s what they are, accomplish absolutely nothing.
Some of the posts represented outright insults or objections to the military action in the Middle East (as if it were all completely unavoidable) by the United States with no obvious suggestions about what other viable options are available or a constructive comment. Don’t get me wrong, some of the pictures required some serious thought and were truly creative (even pretty) but they all failed to make the next step, which was to offer something of substance or something positive or even some direction (however misguided).
My observations eventually led me to believe that all these liberal protesters were whining (some crying). Many were merely exercising their rights of free speech, while others were more “mean-spirited”. The idea behind the website, seems to be that, somehow by aggregating all of these similarly minded (of many well meaning but misguided?) persons and images, they might instantly become more relevant. Frankly, I doubt that conservative constituents would have been as sore about losing an election as this group has been. The common theme of these protests was “sorry” and the tendency to “whine”. Maybe they should start a support group?
Don’t misunderstand what I am trying to say here. Yes, sometimes all we know to do is complain. And complain we must sometimes, or others will never know or appreciate the source or the cause of the complaints. But these persons have other choices. One can’t deny the results of the elections at this late date. The folks need to “Move On” so to speak. The current administration is not the end of the world for Americans, and the majority of us are inclined to support our leaders as has been indicated (some say overwhelmingly so) in the elections.
Aren’t these “protesters” just one-step away from those who would actually remove a yard sign for a conservative candidate? And two steps away from becoming an anarchist? Haven’t these persons by their actions (and their whining) made less of their politics by failing to offer tangible solutions with their objections to the recently re-elected president or by engaging in attacks of a more personal nature (name calling etc)? In doing what these persons have done, haven’t these persons made “a joke of themselves” in a majority of these cases?
Sometimes I wonder what the state of our nation would be in if the elections had gone the way these persons wanted… haven’t these people learned that if a message is worth sending out to the rest of the world, it should be worth repeating, or represent something joyous or remotely useful? Or are liberals the only ones I’ve recently seen wasting server space and bandwidth (personal and Internet related)? If we (Americans) are going to get any better at spreading the word about the benefits of free speech, maybe we shouldn’t waste so much time on “whining”.
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4141857
http://www.wral.com/news/3804934/detail.html
http://www.wral.com/news/3897036/detail.html
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Special Needs
Recently a good friend of mine set me a comic strip that was meant to evoke some kind of response or emotion. I accept that he “meant well” by sending me such a thing but I’ve also considered the fact that some persons don’t have the background or knowledge to understand what they circulate or appreciate the fact that some things can be accepted in a whole different context.
Acceptability, audience and context are in fact very related. At risk of repeating myself, the comic strip was an attempt to evoke some kind of response. I guess this article was the only appropriate one (response) I could come up with. Nobody is trying to be mean spirited here.
First things first, we are talking about relatively well-educated persons for an audience here. I will speak for myself first. I am a classic “underachiever” who grew up in a house with two parents that have been schoolteachers (among other things) during their many years of employment. Both of my parents went to and graduated from college, one parent eventually earned a masters degree. They are both retired now. My sister went to nursing school and earned her RN in four years and works in her field to this day. My brother and I both earned 2 year or associates degrees in business. I’ve been employed now with a major computer manufacturer for 20+ years now. My wife is a teachers aid now in a public elementary school. Her first classes included the instruction and care for children with special needs.
My friend attended basically the same schools that my siblings and me did up until college. That’s when he considered journalism for a time and eventually settled into law. His parents both worked for the same employer I do now. My friend’s father was an educator of sorts when he worked for the company. My friend’s only brother is a teacher in a school somewhere in South Florida.
We all lived in a relatively “suburban” neighborhood that couldn’t be defined as filthy rich or remotely poor. Our childhood years included many opportunities that were later understood and appreciated but we didn’t wake up and find new cars in the driveway waiting for us on our 16th birthdays (unless we had earned the money and purchased them with our own money). The neighborhood was just transient enough that over 12 years of attendance in public schools, that we could count the number of kids we shared the last 6 or so years with, on a hand or two. Everyone knew whom everyone was, but mostly we weren’t so sure we knew everything about everyone. A classic comfortable distance that equals privacy formed, and was acceptable for as long as the agreement between neighbors was for everyone to mind their own business.
We all came from different places (originally) but settled for a time in a city called Boca Raton, Florida. Some of us still live there or close by. Now with the miracle of the Internet, we share ideas and question each other’s paradigms. Occasionally we learn from each other.
The comic strip, which is really the issue that needs to be addressed in this article, stirred (or originally offended) me on a number of levels. Somehow, I struggled to turn it into another learning experience.
Frame One: Imagine a common school room where one sees a number of children and a teacher from several diverse backgrounds or ethnic origins. The teacher introduces a child with “special needs” and inadvertently (or purposely) calls attention to one child’s mental handicap by insisting that he be treated like everyone else. The teacher instantly dismisses the recently introduced child by insisting on resuming the subject at hand without any attempt to help transition the new student (with special needs) to the lesson of the day. The strip emphasized the special needs of the new student indicating the child was belching and a less than proportional facial feature (or two).
Frame Two: The “special needs child” displays oratory confusion by making infantile noises and this is further accentuated by a runny nose and awkward phrase on a t-shirt. The lead caption calls attention to the fact that special needs children make others feel awkward and slow the pace of learning for the students who have what most persons might consider to be more normal or even gifted attributes.
Frame Three: The lead caption attempts to soften or rationalize the messages sent in the previous frames by stating, “smart kids should make an effort to be nice”. A reference is made to additional needs of the handicapped child and that indicate he needs assistance with his most basic bodily functions. The “special need” in this frame is defined as a child expressing physical discomfort or crying noises. The teacher is required to assist.
Frame Four: A new teacher comes into the picture and indicates that the old one has left. The gifted or more normal children are in a state of relative confusion over this new news. The caption indicates that children without special needs may not respond positively to change or new teachers.
Now I have to admit that I am not an educator and that the stereotypes depicted in the previous paragraphs are rather crude but there are some messages that comics like this send that are offensive. Merely taking offense would be an easy route to avoid knowledge and understanding of the situation though, and since when were knee jerk reactions our best ones? My point here is that there are things to be learned from this so-called comic strip. One shouldn’t cheat them self out of a learning experience by settling for being offended. By now it’s understandable if you accept that I might be the mentally handicapped kid in the comic and not the Mensa candidate.
Response to Frame One: If, for the sake of argument, a classroom might be filled with persons from a single background or intellectual capacity or aptitude, that wouldn’t be the end of the world or proof that racism or prejudice exists in that classroom. Reasonable persons understand that knowledge and practical experience is gained from occasional but constructive discourse. Why shouldn’t we all try to get along and why should we have to make it easy? Dolts have been known to be impecably manicured and wear suits and ties too. Books (students and teachers) should not be judged by their covers. Many "special needs" are no so obvious to the casual observer.
Response to Frame Two: Schools aren’t built for the purposes of promoting socialist principals but reality is that we must all eventually make occasional accommodations for our fellow human beings, even those who can’t demonstrate that they have a special need. Children who are exposed to persons who need more or different kinds of assistance will eventually understand and appreciate their own abilities for what they are. One can learn from teaching, observing and from being reminded about what we all went through before we gained the knowledge and skills to perform at our current levels.
Response to Frame Three: Persons with special needs don’t need to be patronized or treated in a condescending manner, they do need to find their place in society and be welcomed into situations where their presence and contributions can be respected and valued. Occasionally individuals might be required to perform exceptional duties so that they can participate. We are all human.
Response to Frame Four: Working with persons who have special needs requires a lot of patience. The rewards aren’t often expressed in monetary terms. It is emotionally exhausting work. Teaching is hard work, even with children that never leave the “mainstream” and it often under-appreciated (under-paid). Some change is inevitable and coping skills need to be developed early where this is possible. It's not reasonable to blame children with special needs for churn in the ranks of educators any more than other factors.
Conclusion: There are a lot of things to learn from all children and from so-called "adults" (but not always the obviously more "intelligent" ones). Some of us are just "gifted" in different ways. Occassionally immersion strategies work both ways. Parents, teachers and students usually get what they put into such things and it pays to be careful about what you say and how you treat the kids who come in off the "short bus". Some day, it might even stop in front of your house.
http://www.mensa.org/info.php
http://www.ci.boca-raton.fl.us/
Acceptability, audience and context are in fact very related. At risk of repeating myself, the comic strip was an attempt to evoke some kind of response. I guess this article was the only appropriate one (response) I could come up with. Nobody is trying to be mean spirited here.
First things first, we are talking about relatively well-educated persons for an audience here. I will speak for myself first. I am a classic “underachiever” who grew up in a house with two parents that have been schoolteachers (among other things) during their many years of employment. Both of my parents went to and graduated from college, one parent eventually earned a masters degree. They are both retired now. My sister went to nursing school and earned her RN in four years and works in her field to this day. My brother and I both earned 2 year or associates degrees in business. I’ve been employed now with a major computer manufacturer for 20+ years now. My wife is a teachers aid now in a public elementary school. Her first classes included the instruction and care for children with special needs.
My friend attended basically the same schools that my siblings and me did up until college. That’s when he considered journalism for a time and eventually settled into law. His parents both worked for the same employer I do now. My friend’s father was an educator of sorts when he worked for the company. My friend’s only brother is a teacher in a school somewhere in South Florida.
We all lived in a relatively “suburban” neighborhood that couldn’t be defined as filthy rich or remotely poor. Our childhood years included many opportunities that were later understood and appreciated but we didn’t wake up and find new cars in the driveway waiting for us on our 16th birthdays (unless we had earned the money and purchased them with our own money). The neighborhood was just transient enough that over 12 years of attendance in public schools, that we could count the number of kids we shared the last 6 or so years with, on a hand or two. Everyone knew whom everyone was, but mostly we weren’t so sure we knew everything about everyone. A classic comfortable distance that equals privacy formed, and was acceptable for as long as the agreement between neighbors was for everyone to mind their own business.
We all came from different places (originally) but settled for a time in a city called Boca Raton, Florida. Some of us still live there or close by. Now with the miracle of the Internet, we share ideas and question each other’s paradigms. Occasionally we learn from each other.
The comic strip, which is really the issue that needs to be addressed in this article, stirred (or originally offended) me on a number of levels. Somehow, I struggled to turn it into another learning experience.
Frame One: Imagine a common school room where one sees a number of children and a teacher from several diverse backgrounds or ethnic origins. The teacher introduces a child with “special needs” and inadvertently (or purposely) calls attention to one child’s mental handicap by insisting that he be treated like everyone else. The teacher instantly dismisses the recently introduced child by insisting on resuming the subject at hand without any attempt to help transition the new student (with special needs) to the lesson of the day. The strip emphasized the special needs of the new student indicating the child was belching and a less than proportional facial feature (or two).
Frame Two: The “special needs child” displays oratory confusion by making infantile noises and this is further accentuated by a runny nose and awkward phrase on a t-shirt. The lead caption calls attention to the fact that special needs children make others feel awkward and slow the pace of learning for the students who have what most persons might consider to be more normal or even gifted attributes.
Frame Three: The lead caption attempts to soften or rationalize the messages sent in the previous frames by stating, “smart kids should make an effort to be nice”. A reference is made to additional needs of the handicapped child and that indicate he needs assistance with his most basic bodily functions. The “special need” in this frame is defined as a child expressing physical discomfort or crying noises. The teacher is required to assist.
Frame Four: A new teacher comes into the picture and indicates that the old one has left. The gifted or more normal children are in a state of relative confusion over this new news. The caption indicates that children without special needs may not respond positively to change or new teachers.
Now I have to admit that I am not an educator and that the stereotypes depicted in the previous paragraphs are rather crude but there are some messages that comics like this send that are offensive. Merely taking offense would be an easy route to avoid knowledge and understanding of the situation though, and since when were knee jerk reactions our best ones? My point here is that there are things to be learned from this so-called comic strip. One shouldn’t cheat them self out of a learning experience by settling for being offended. By now it’s understandable if you accept that I might be the mentally handicapped kid in the comic and not the Mensa candidate.
Response to Frame One: If, for the sake of argument, a classroom might be filled with persons from a single background or intellectual capacity or aptitude, that wouldn’t be the end of the world or proof that racism or prejudice exists in that classroom. Reasonable persons understand that knowledge and practical experience is gained from occasional but constructive discourse. Why shouldn’t we all try to get along and why should we have to make it easy? Dolts have been known to be impecably manicured and wear suits and ties too. Books (students and teachers) should not be judged by their covers. Many "special needs" are no so obvious to the casual observer.
Response to Frame Two: Schools aren’t built for the purposes of promoting socialist principals but reality is that we must all eventually make occasional accommodations for our fellow human beings, even those who can’t demonstrate that they have a special need. Children who are exposed to persons who need more or different kinds of assistance will eventually understand and appreciate their own abilities for what they are. One can learn from teaching, observing and from being reminded about what we all went through before we gained the knowledge and skills to perform at our current levels.
Response to Frame Three: Persons with special needs don’t need to be patronized or treated in a condescending manner, they do need to find their place in society and be welcomed into situations where their presence and contributions can be respected and valued. Occasionally individuals might be required to perform exceptional duties so that they can participate. We are all human.
Response to Frame Four: Working with persons who have special needs requires a lot of patience. The rewards aren’t often expressed in monetary terms. It is emotionally exhausting work. Teaching is hard work, even with children that never leave the “mainstream” and it often under-appreciated (under-paid). Some change is inevitable and coping skills need to be developed early where this is possible. It's not reasonable to blame children with special needs for churn in the ranks of educators any more than other factors.
Conclusion: There are a lot of things to learn from all children and from so-called "adults" (but not always the obviously more "intelligent" ones). Some of us are just "gifted" in different ways. Occassionally immersion strategies work both ways. Parents, teachers and students usually get what they put into such things and it pays to be careful about what you say and how you treat the kids who come in off the "short bus". Some day, it might even stop in front of your house.
http://www.mensa.org/info.php
http://www.ci.boca-raton.fl.us/
Monday, November 15, 2004
Journalists... or predators?
In early August of 2004, Marnita Annette Lynn Bynum, 40, was strangled to death. Later on her husband Melvin, who was pastor for a church in Sanford, NC, “Cry Out Loud Ministries”, was charged with her murder. Marnita Bynum's body was discovered in the trunk of her car around 2:00am one morning near Hamlet, NC. Ironically, Marnita Bynum started the women's crisis center at the church her husband preached at.
One facet of this story that hasn’t gotten any “serious second looks” is the kind of coverage it got from WTVD reporter Shae Crisson. As Melvin Bynum entered a property and was met by relatives who may or may not have known about who might have committed the crime, they were asked, “Don’t you want to know who murdered your mother?” for the television cameras by Ms Crissom. Needless to say relatives of Ms Bynum were angered by such heartless inquiries during what was arguably the worst or earliest part their grief.
In another situation, WRAL TV reporter Amanda Lamb attempted to interview Ann Miller prior to the filing of indictments, which now allege Miller's involvement in the arsenic related death of her husband Eric. As Ms. Miller made her way into a government building, Lamb confronts an obviously shaken woman who is not interested in making a statement. The film clip and audio have since been recycled into a number of so-called news segments or promotional trailers that are broadcast by the North Carolina news station. Neither woman, accused/alleged murderer or the reporter, provided viewers with much in terms of real news that day. The moment clearly wasn’t the high point in either of their careers (or lifetimes) yet this 10-second segment gets repeat airings.
In early November 2004, “photo journalists were attacked by Asa Collier after he engaged in some kind of outburst outside the Wake County Courthouse. Pictures depict Collier pushing cameramen away from him and viewers are left to ponder who is being most offensive (cameramen or anarchist protester). A man’s friends were facing obvious jail time for their actions and instead of giving him time and distance to compose himself or disappear the cameramen dove in towards their prey for a close up.
Every day these people meet persons on the worst days of their lives. To some extent these newspersons feed on these events or stoke the emotions of viewers and those who are viewed. Since when was reporting the news also supposed to include “making news” by engaging in such predatory tactics? If these were second string or tabloid reporters these events might dismissible but the reporters involved have worked for years in the business and should know better.
These are the kinds of reporting strategies that occur almost every day (albeit more often to lesser degrees) in other situations. It’s conceivable that some day soon, a reporter might actually be physically harmed when attempting a legitimate interview using less predatory tactics. The media will most probably resort to blaming those that they perceive to be attackers.
Reasonable persons have to wonder, what ethics do these journalists subscribe to? What motivates or encourages the situations like the ones described in this short history or description of recent events? Are these persons acting like responsible journalists when they “make the news” or acting more like desperate second-string paparazzi?
Whatever your views on the actions that these “journalists” (or those who are being asked for interviews) engage in, one has to admit that for as long as media persons “play with fire”, they risk getting burned. Some stories actually require aggressive tactics and certain risks. On the other hand, some stories or events don't deserve coverage or risks of any kind. And those persons (or their friends and family) who have suffered from undeserved and unwanted media exposure, won’t sympathize with reporters when they (media) suffer an occasional punch, scratch or broken piece of equipment (or much worse?) as a result of their predatory behaviors.
Good journalists know better than to behave like paparazzi and have learned to be more accountable for their actions. What about the “good guys” out there that won’t “get the story” or report some “real news” because the public (or public servants) have good cause to be on the defensive or demonstrate strong reservations about the media courting them for an occasional opinion, sound-byte or picture? Something to think about, no… and surprises occur almost every day, but don’t count on reading about such things in the papers or viewing a segment on journalist ethics on TV anytime soon.
WTVD: Pastor Arrested in Wife's Murder, August 19th, 2004. Article online at: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/081904_NW_bynumarrested.html viewed on November 15th, 2004.
WRALTV: Previous Stories About Eric Miller Murder. Article online at: http://www.wral.com/news/2171957/detail.html, viewed on November 15th, 2004.
WRALTV: Friend Of GOP Vandalism Suspects Has Emotional Outburst Outside Court . November 8th, 2004. Article online at: http://www.wral.com/news/3898517/detail.html, viewed on November 15th, 2004.
Shae Crisson – Biography on the Internet - http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/bios/Bio_Shae_Crisson.html
Amanda Lamb – Biography on the Internet –
http://www.wral.com/staff/460798/detail.html
One facet of this story that hasn’t gotten any “serious second looks” is the kind of coverage it got from WTVD reporter Shae Crisson. As Melvin Bynum entered a property and was met by relatives who may or may not have known about who might have committed the crime, they were asked, “Don’t you want to know who murdered your mother?” for the television cameras by Ms Crissom. Needless to say relatives of Ms Bynum were angered by such heartless inquiries during what was arguably the worst or earliest part their grief.
In another situation, WRAL TV reporter Amanda Lamb attempted to interview Ann Miller prior to the filing of indictments, which now allege Miller's involvement in the arsenic related death of her husband Eric. As Ms. Miller made her way into a government building, Lamb confronts an obviously shaken woman who is not interested in making a statement. The film clip and audio have since been recycled into a number of so-called news segments or promotional trailers that are broadcast by the North Carolina news station. Neither woman, accused/alleged murderer or the reporter, provided viewers with much in terms of real news that day. The moment clearly wasn’t the high point in either of their careers (or lifetimes) yet this 10-second segment gets repeat airings.
In early November 2004, “photo journalists were attacked by Asa Collier after he engaged in some kind of outburst outside the Wake County Courthouse. Pictures depict Collier pushing cameramen away from him and viewers are left to ponder who is being most offensive (cameramen or anarchist protester). A man’s friends were facing obvious jail time for their actions and instead of giving him time and distance to compose himself or disappear the cameramen dove in towards their prey for a close up.
Every day these people meet persons on the worst days of their lives. To some extent these newspersons feed on these events or stoke the emotions of viewers and those who are viewed. Since when was reporting the news also supposed to include “making news” by engaging in such predatory tactics? If these were second string or tabloid reporters these events might dismissible but the reporters involved have worked for years in the business and should know better.
These are the kinds of reporting strategies that occur almost every day (albeit more often to lesser degrees) in other situations. It’s conceivable that some day soon, a reporter might actually be physically harmed when attempting a legitimate interview using less predatory tactics. The media will most probably resort to blaming those that they perceive to be attackers.
Reasonable persons have to wonder, what ethics do these journalists subscribe to? What motivates or encourages the situations like the ones described in this short history or description of recent events? Are these persons acting like responsible journalists when they “make the news” or acting more like desperate second-string paparazzi?
Whatever your views on the actions that these “journalists” (or those who are being asked for interviews) engage in, one has to admit that for as long as media persons “play with fire”, they risk getting burned. Some stories actually require aggressive tactics and certain risks. On the other hand, some stories or events don't deserve coverage or risks of any kind. And those persons (or their friends and family) who have suffered from undeserved and unwanted media exposure, won’t sympathize with reporters when they (media) suffer an occasional punch, scratch or broken piece of equipment (or much worse?) as a result of their predatory behaviors.
Good journalists know better than to behave like paparazzi and have learned to be more accountable for their actions. What about the “good guys” out there that won’t “get the story” or report some “real news” because the public (or public servants) have good cause to be on the defensive or demonstrate strong reservations about the media courting them for an occasional opinion, sound-byte or picture? Something to think about, no… and surprises occur almost every day, but don’t count on reading about such things in the papers or viewing a segment on journalist ethics on TV anytime soon.
WTVD: Pastor Arrested in Wife's Murder, August 19th, 2004. Article online at: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/081904_NW_bynumarrested.html viewed on November 15th, 2004.
WRALTV: Previous Stories About Eric Miller Murder. Article online at: http://www.wral.com/news/2171957/detail.html, viewed on November 15th, 2004.
WRALTV: Friend Of GOP Vandalism Suspects Has Emotional Outburst Outside Court . November 8th, 2004. Article online at: http://www.wral.com/news/3898517/detail.html, viewed on November 15th, 2004.
Shae Crisson – Biography on the Internet - http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/bios/Bio_Shae_Crisson.html
Amanda Lamb – Biography on the Internet –
http://www.wral.com/staff/460798/detail.html
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
When felons act like felons...
Articles depict the “adventures” of a man convicted of attempted 1st degree murder who was at large for 16 days. William Barefoot escaped the Hoke County jail and stole items while living in the woods and in empty homes. He was captured on November 9th, 2004.
Barefoot isn’t the only prisoner who has ever escaped a North Carolina prison and probably won’t be the last either. In 2003 “only” 3 inmates weren’t captured after successfully escaping. Even after Barefoot’s capture, another 193 offenders remain on escape status. 16 of these escapees were involved in some kind of murder charge. 1st or 2nd degree makes no matter to the victims. All the victims who died are equally dead. Offenders are classified by their most violent offense, so this means that murderers who “only” maimed others get the most credit for only their most violent offenses.
Sometimes the results of escapes only add another chapter to an ongoing tragedy. Luckily this time no other victims were added to Barefoot’s tally. Even the escapee was able to avoid being harmed.
This is not always the case though. In 2002, weeks after escaping the Odom Correctional Institution in Northhampton County North Carolina, the body of escaped murderer Gustavo Giraldo was found in the Roanoke River, he apparently drowned.
Among the stories that are missing in the papers are those of family members of victims or persons who have reason to feel threatened when the prison system breaks down and offenders get away (or try to). Prison breaks are a reality that witnesses, court officials and law enforcement almost never talk about but some issues are like this one, are occasionally self-evident, if only once in a while. Tomorrow the story of Barefoot will fade away at least until the next violent offender attempts or succeeds in his prison break.
Eighty percent of offenders are eventually released from prison on parole supervision; others are placed on probation or “max out”. New offenses mean that more victims have suffered. More court cases and court costs are included in the equation. Studies indicate that over 2/3rd’s of released prisoners are rearrested in as short a period as three years.
Barefoot is back in prison now. Those that he shares space with are obviously prone to violent behaviors. In the 2002-2003 fiscal year 59,884 infractions were committed in North Carolina prisons. The second most frequent Class A offense was “assault on staff” with 671 occurrences reported in the 2001-2002 fiscal year. “Just 500 more” in 2003. No one is saying what the costs of all of those assaults were for staff or how much this cost North Carolinians in lost wages, hospital and medical costs, rehabilitation and counseling that may have been required. Violence is a known part of the penal system and offenders who face long sentences have little or no incentive to behave. Weapons are commonly used by inmates against each other and staff and 698 assaults with weapons occurred in 2003.
We can build more prisons and make new laws that will be broken. Prison populations are currently around 36 thousand or so in North Carolina. So there’s no problem documenting the fact that there is "a crime problem".
So what’s the solution? Obviously we can’t lock up everyone and protect the population of an entire state from itself. The system would collapse under it’s own weight, not that this isn’t already happening to some extent.
Prison can become a "poor mans retirement plan" of sorts too. If you commit a crime that requires prison or jail time, taxpayers pick up the tab for your housing and medical needs. For less than $50 per day per inmate, citizens get 3 meals a day and a shower every other day for forfeiting their right to vote. Parents, “on the outside” can’t get daycare for their children for less.
The problem isn’t the system, except that it might be too easy an option for those that chose to break the law. It’s that the motivations that exist for persons who will break the laws are too strong. What does this mean? We shouldn’t make it easy for criminals to engage in bad behaviors. North Carolinians need to invest in "target hardening" or motive reduction techniques.
One motivation for some persons to commit crime is cash or illegal trade. More work needs to be put into eliminating cash motivated crimes. Many transactions are conducted with cash for the purposes of sales tax avoidance. For instance, there’s no way to say who owns a piece of currency or a $100 bill. Such things can change hands with little or no notice. We need to explore other options in terms of legal tender. More secure credit and debit cards are part of the answer. If such financial instruments required more robust or biometric authentication during transaction processing, what we buy would more likely be ours and if we were able to mark or track what we purchase less obviously and more reliably what is ours could stay in our possession until we use it up or sell it or properly dispose of it, more often. RFID’s offer one potential solution. The temptation to carry large sums of currency would be reduced for law abiding citizens and as a result, they'd be less likely to be preyed upon.
A society that experiences less wrongs is less likely to be motivated to commit wrongful actions against itself or be incarcerated. When you make it harder for the "common thug" to commit fraud or steal from others they can’t support drug habits. Securing transactions means new processes will require attention to privacy issues. The problems of the future will center on the issue of “Too much information” in the wrong hands, and will require some careful thought.
Barefoot was apprehended because he lacked the tools (or money) to function or hide in today’s world. North Carolinian’s were lucky that this offender did not consider assuming a new identity or actually attack persons while he was on the lamb. Desperate persons are often inclined to perform desperate acts. Who is to say that next time we won’t be as lucky? Or that offenders who have already been released from prisons after serving time for murders they have been convicted of, won’t perpetrate more of the same kinds of crime?
WRALTV - Barefoot's Adventure Becomes Clear As He Reveals His Trek, Raleigh, NC: Available from http://www.wral.com/news/3908315/detail.html. Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Escaped Offender Reports ,Database Online. Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Statistical Report Generator ,Database Online. Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Research and Planning, Statistical Publications, Accessed November 10th, 2004.
U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, Reentry Trends in the United States, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Annual Statistical Report, Disciplinary Infractions, p12-13, http://crrp41.doc.state.nc.us/docs/pubdocs/0006072.PDF
RFID Journal, http://www.rfidjournal.com/
Barefoot isn’t the only prisoner who has ever escaped a North Carolina prison and probably won’t be the last either. In 2003 “only” 3 inmates weren’t captured after successfully escaping. Even after Barefoot’s capture, another 193 offenders remain on escape status. 16 of these escapees were involved in some kind of murder charge. 1st or 2nd degree makes no matter to the victims. All the victims who died are equally dead. Offenders are classified by their most violent offense, so this means that murderers who “only” maimed others get the most credit for only their most violent offenses.
Sometimes the results of escapes only add another chapter to an ongoing tragedy. Luckily this time no other victims were added to Barefoot’s tally. Even the escapee was able to avoid being harmed.
This is not always the case though. In 2002, weeks after escaping the Odom Correctional Institution in Northhampton County North Carolina, the body of escaped murderer Gustavo Giraldo was found in the Roanoke River, he apparently drowned.
Among the stories that are missing in the papers are those of family members of victims or persons who have reason to feel threatened when the prison system breaks down and offenders get away (or try to). Prison breaks are a reality that witnesses, court officials and law enforcement almost never talk about but some issues are like this one, are occasionally self-evident, if only once in a while. Tomorrow the story of Barefoot will fade away at least until the next violent offender attempts or succeeds in his prison break.
Eighty percent of offenders are eventually released from prison on parole supervision; others are placed on probation or “max out”. New offenses mean that more victims have suffered. More court cases and court costs are included in the equation. Studies indicate that over 2/3rd’s of released prisoners are rearrested in as short a period as three years.
Barefoot is back in prison now. Those that he shares space with are obviously prone to violent behaviors. In the 2002-2003 fiscal year 59,884 infractions were committed in North Carolina prisons. The second most frequent Class A offense was “assault on staff” with 671 occurrences reported in the 2001-2002 fiscal year. “Just 500 more” in 2003. No one is saying what the costs of all of those assaults were for staff or how much this cost North Carolinians in lost wages, hospital and medical costs, rehabilitation and counseling that may have been required. Violence is a known part of the penal system and offenders who face long sentences have little or no incentive to behave. Weapons are commonly used by inmates against each other and staff and 698 assaults with weapons occurred in 2003.
We can build more prisons and make new laws that will be broken. Prison populations are currently around 36 thousand or so in North Carolina. So there’s no problem documenting the fact that there is "a crime problem".
So what’s the solution? Obviously we can’t lock up everyone and protect the population of an entire state from itself. The system would collapse under it’s own weight, not that this isn’t already happening to some extent.
Prison can become a "poor mans retirement plan" of sorts too. If you commit a crime that requires prison or jail time, taxpayers pick up the tab for your housing and medical needs. For less than $50 per day per inmate, citizens get 3 meals a day and a shower every other day for forfeiting their right to vote. Parents, “on the outside” can’t get daycare for their children for less.
The problem isn’t the system, except that it might be too easy an option for those that chose to break the law. It’s that the motivations that exist for persons who will break the laws are too strong. What does this mean? We shouldn’t make it easy for criminals to engage in bad behaviors. North Carolinians need to invest in "target hardening" or motive reduction techniques.
One motivation for some persons to commit crime is cash or illegal trade. More work needs to be put into eliminating cash motivated crimes. Many transactions are conducted with cash for the purposes of sales tax avoidance. For instance, there’s no way to say who owns a piece of currency or a $100 bill. Such things can change hands with little or no notice. We need to explore other options in terms of legal tender. More secure credit and debit cards are part of the answer. If such financial instruments required more robust or biometric authentication during transaction processing, what we buy would more likely be ours and if we were able to mark or track what we purchase less obviously and more reliably what is ours could stay in our possession until we use it up or sell it or properly dispose of it, more often. RFID’s offer one potential solution. The temptation to carry large sums of currency would be reduced for law abiding citizens and as a result, they'd be less likely to be preyed upon.
A society that experiences less wrongs is less likely to be motivated to commit wrongful actions against itself or be incarcerated. When you make it harder for the "common thug" to commit fraud or steal from others they can’t support drug habits. Securing transactions means new processes will require attention to privacy issues. The problems of the future will center on the issue of “Too much information” in the wrong hands, and will require some careful thought.
Barefoot was apprehended because he lacked the tools (or money) to function or hide in today’s world. North Carolinian’s were lucky that this offender did not consider assuming a new identity or actually attack persons while he was on the lamb. Desperate persons are often inclined to perform desperate acts. Who is to say that next time we won’t be as lucky? Or that offenders who have already been released from prisons after serving time for murders they have been convicted of, won’t perpetrate more of the same kinds of crime?
WRALTV - Barefoot's Adventure Becomes Clear As He Reveals His Trek, Raleigh, NC: Available from http://www.wral.com/news/3908315/detail.html. Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Escaped Offender Reports ,Database Online. Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Statistical Report Generator ,Database Online. Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Research and Planning, Statistical Publications, Accessed November 10th, 2004.
U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, Reentry Trends in the United States, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm Accessed November 10th, 2004.
NC DOC Annual Statistical Report, Disciplinary Infractions, p12-13, http://crrp41.doc.state.nc.us/docs/pubdocs/0006072.PDF
RFID Journal, http://www.rfidjournal.com/
Friday, November 05, 2004
American Election Yields Results and Requires Representation
Like it or not, the elections have their yielded results. Americans are faced with the new slate of leaders and it’s time to get back to business. It’s hard not to make an occasional or random observation about the situation.
- One of the unfortunate realities of politics is that our leaders often owe debts or favors, which perpetuate a situation that encourages cronyisms. All of our leaders (good and bad) have histories. This problem defines prior administrations and will inevitably continue. Constituents depend on the media to help monitor the performance of our leadership and help provide constructive alternatives (not just criticism).
Some persons have already made the observation that: $140 billion in tax breaks, bailouts, and subsidies for U.S. multinationals and other special interests have been made over the past two decades by various administrations. Bob Graham of Florida has pointed out, there are 14 additional incentives for corporations to export U.S. jobs to cheap foreign labor markets, and the new tax law rewards, rather than punishes, companies that have moved both jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile congress has ignored the issues of controlling our borders and illegal immigration. This has resulted in a downturn in wages earned by Americans and reduced revenues for state and federal governments.
- Is a second term administration more or less likely to pursue policies that conflict with special interests than a new one that probably has more favors to settle? Americans need to articulate their needs more often, more publicly and do so in a constructive tone (through the proper channels for the greatest effect).
Other observations include the fact that there are few blue collar workers in government and that a large portion of our legislators are in fact lawyers. While less than 1 percent of our population can claim millionaire status, about 30 percent of the Congress is made up of millionaires. None of our elected officials lives in poverty, as do 36 million of us, and, of course, none has had to apply for welfare or training assistance after his or her job was shipped overseas.
- Is poverty a standard for electing leadership? Is an apparent “financial failure” going to be more or less vulnerable to enticement or payoffs by special interests? Do persons who fail financially demonstrate a working knowledge of government or the leadership skills that deserve a constituent’s vote or support?
Blacks and Hispanics make up 26 percent of our diverse society, but minorities make up only 14 percent of those serving in Congress. While the middle class is the most underrepresented and least-served majority in Congress, women have the next largest complaint. Fifty-one percent of our population is female, but women make up only 14 percent of Congress.
- Is representative diversity a real problem? If it is, it needs to be substantiated by specific complaints from persons in the appropriate groups. Are the minority candidates projecting a more or less positive image and are these persons willing to work within the system to accomplish goals? There are valid reasons why persons such as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are not considered viable presidential candidates. The concepts of “affirmative action” don’t apply to elected officials. One should not choose their leaders based on their minority status (or lack of it). A legislator should be put into office based on their agenda, skills and overall viability has an effective leader (not race, religion, color or good looks). If legitimate grievances exist, they need to be brought to the persons who can address them appropriately and resolve them.
Ninety-two percent of Congress has a bachelor's degree, compared with only 18 percent of the U.S. public. A diploma isn't required to understand the impact of outsourcing, deficits, and immigration on our quality of life and standard of living. Congress is supposedly more highly educated than the general public.
- Education and knowledge have always been two separate notions. How persons apply their education and the deeds they pursue indicates their relative wisdom. Some of the outsourcing represents “seed corn” in that third world nations don’t purchase our products or services and will never need what we produce as long as they don’t have an economy that supports demand for 21st century products and services that can be provided by Americans who educate themselves in tomorrows technologies. This is our incentive to be creative and productive in new endeavors. Manufacturing jobs and repetitive tasks will go to the cheapest labor force and false incentives will eventually stifle the markets and productivity. The answers to the world’s economic problems are not always best met with increased government intervention.
Seventy-two percent of Americans said outsourcing is mostly negative, while only 31 percent of our leaders agreed.
- Outsourcing hurts our economy. Commodities purchased abroad require transportation and handling that use petroleum products that support nations that are not friendly to our interests too. Customers need to better understand the value of domestically sourced products. Domestically produced goods and services need to be marketed as such more often and more forcefully.
While Congress and our presidential candidates have all but ignored the issue of illegal immigration, the public opposes any measure that would give illegal aliens temporary worker status.
- American Citizenship should be given a more sacred status. Employment of illegal aliens results in currency exports (they send money home) and represents “local outsourcing”. Persons and businesses that “feed the bears” need to be confronted with harsher sanctions (not appeasement) and more vigorous enforcement of the current laws. Our borders need to be enforced for economic and physical security related reasons. When we employ persons who do not pay their fair share of taxes or allow illegal immigrants to sponge off of the services that legal citizens pay for the American economy suffers. The incentives for legal citizens to remain productive are diminished. Countries that passively export surplus workers without documentation need to be given incentive to abide by and enforce their own laws. Our nation should aggressively deport known illegal aliens and felons from other countries that do not abide our laws.
Our political energies over the past year have been spent principally on deciding who will lead the nation over the next four years, it is now clear that among the many important goals we face will be efforts to achieve true representation for the American middle class workers.
- Americans need rise above political and financially driven agendas and focus on constructive efforts that improve the standard of living for more persons and nations. The “divisive political atmosphere” of the recent past, needs to be changed. Participating in America’s success should have less to do with whether or not you are a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative or belong to some protected group and more about ones personal contribution. Achieving success should not represent an open invitation for ridicule, unwarranted or untrue public appraisals or attack.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Anatomy of an Apology
For as long as persons have committed wrongs against other persons, there has been a need for the occasional apology. And like closing barn doors after horses have left, apologies don’t make up for what requires such actions in the first place. Doing things that might minimize (not dismiss) the impact or frequency of potential failures from the same sources (or apologists) should be given some attention too.
Apologies shouldn’t be taken for granted or dismissed when they are genuine, but there are always exceptions. There are many instances where such things aren’t deliverable to persons who can accept or acknowledge them. Some mistakes of judgment are in fact quite lethal. Offerings of atonement of some kind might be made in certain instances and they are also subject to being refused. Reparations by themselves often don’t mean much and some errors cannot ever be reversed or paid for in full. Persons should not feel obligated to put themselves in danger so that an apologist might have the opportunity to act contritely.
Apologies (if they are in fact real) require an admission of guilt or an actual confession including an acknowledgement that wrongful actions have indeed occurred and deserve special note. Many apologies also include a request for forgiveness and are without strings. While requests for forgiveness are not necessary, they are often implied. Genuine apologies are spoken and delivered softly. Apologies are serious things and not to be easily (or flippantly) shared or accepted.
Many apologies include expressions of regret for ones own actions not the events, which require an apology. One must accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions not just observe that certain wrongful actions have occurred. Those who have suffered often require an explanation of circumstances minus any zealous justifications. Apologies made for the sake of “moving on” are meaningless. One must commit to learning from an experience and to not repeating their mistakes. New knowledge must also be applied. Apologies must not become substitutes for doing what is right when one knows better.
Each apology is unique. The situation and circumstances that require them are unique and what can be returned in terms of forgiveness is equally unique. One can’t just look to a scripture, a guideline or a law and determine what actions are always appropriate or apply to individual situations. Some decisions and issues are best left to others who can manage them with real knowledge, detachment and the authority to exact some level of fairness without being overbearing or unfair. If the receiver of an apology has the capacity to accept such a thing, it can’t be forced upon them, and if it is, acceptance is not real. One who accepts or refuses an apology should not be looked down on. Sometimes acceptance and forgiveness take time, and at other times more needs to be done before such things are earned. The acceptance (or refusal) of an apology is not to be interpreted as a concession or recognition of lack of character, weakness or guilt. Apologies aren't always to be accepted at the end of a prison sentence.
In many instances mistakes are mediated into nonexistence where neither party admits guilt or accepts a loss. Or just money, changing hands “makes things disappear”. Apologies (even behind closed doors) are often forgotten. “Agreements to disagree” are one thing but to pretend like nothing has happened when conflicts actually occur amounts to lying.
Whatever happened to “I did it, I was there, what I did was wrong, and what I did, did not need to happen, I am sorry for what I did too, I have learned from this, I will not repeat that mistake again, your forgiveness is not required and if you don’t forgive me I can’t hold this against you”?
If it "ain't real" why waste everyones time (and your own)?
Apologies shouldn’t be taken for granted or dismissed when they are genuine, but there are always exceptions. There are many instances where such things aren’t deliverable to persons who can accept or acknowledge them. Some mistakes of judgment are in fact quite lethal. Offerings of atonement of some kind might be made in certain instances and they are also subject to being refused. Reparations by themselves often don’t mean much and some errors cannot ever be reversed or paid for in full. Persons should not feel obligated to put themselves in danger so that an apologist might have the opportunity to act contritely.
Apologies (if they are in fact real) require an admission of guilt or an actual confession including an acknowledgement that wrongful actions have indeed occurred and deserve special note. Many apologies also include a request for forgiveness and are without strings. While requests for forgiveness are not necessary, they are often implied. Genuine apologies are spoken and delivered softly. Apologies are serious things and not to be easily (or flippantly) shared or accepted.
Many apologies include expressions of regret for ones own actions not the events, which require an apology. One must accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions not just observe that certain wrongful actions have occurred. Those who have suffered often require an explanation of circumstances minus any zealous justifications. Apologies made for the sake of “moving on” are meaningless. One must commit to learning from an experience and to not repeating their mistakes. New knowledge must also be applied. Apologies must not become substitutes for doing what is right when one knows better.
Each apology is unique. The situation and circumstances that require them are unique and what can be returned in terms of forgiveness is equally unique. One can’t just look to a scripture, a guideline or a law and determine what actions are always appropriate or apply to individual situations. Some decisions and issues are best left to others who can manage them with real knowledge, detachment and the authority to exact some level of fairness without being overbearing or unfair. If the receiver of an apology has the capacity to accept such a thing, it can’t be forced upon them, and if it is, acceptance is not real. One who accepts or refuses an apology should not be looked down on. Sometimes acceptance and forgiveness take time, and at other times more needs to be done before such things are earned. The acceptance (or refusal) of an apology is not to be interpreted as a concession or recognition of lack of character, weakness or guilt. Apologies aren't always to be accepted at the end of a prison sentence.
In many instances mistakes are mediated into nonexistence where neither party admits guilt or accepts a loss. Or just money, changing hands “makes things disappear”. Apologies (even behind closed doors) are often forgotten. “Agreements to disagree” are one thing but to pretend like nothing has happened when conflicts actually occur amounts to lying.
Whatever happened to “I did it, I was there, what I did was wrong, and what I did, did not need to happen, I am sorry for what I did too, I have learned from this, I will not repeat that mistake again, your forgiveness is not required and if you don’t forgive me I can’t hold this against you”?
If it "ain't real" why waste everyones time (and your own)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)