Barry Saunders - proof that there's lead in the water...

re: http://www.newsobserver.com/559/story/561537.html

If News and Observer readers need more proof that there’s lead in Durham water they need look no further than Barry Saunders’ most recent column “Florida does right by felons”. It’s no secret that Saunders’ views often tilt to the “left of center” but now he’s choosing to advocate for felons; his admission into the “obsessive progressive” club is now secure.

Too bad he has to resort to terms such as “ex-felon” to make his points. To those that are unaware, such watered down terms are often used by “bed wetting liberals” in their attempts to re-write history. Once a citizen is convicted of a felony you shouldn’t just pretend that it never happened. Only fools would trust embezzlers and drug addicts hands in public matters (and with taxpayer’s money). No doubt Saunders and his ilk are also pushing for expunction of criminal records so that even their term “ex-felon” might be “conveniently forgotten”.

Speaking of “forgetfulness”, Saunders promotes the idea that felons should be allowed to vote once they are released from prison despite owing restitution or damages to their victims. Only the worst of "enablers" would enact legislation that would reduce incentives for felons to pay restitution for the crimes that they’ve committed. Is the man confused, has he mistaken the criminals for victims? Maybe he’s forgotten that the Victim Compensation Fund is not exactly well funded. Suggesting that felons who paid their debts to society shouldn’t have to take the initiative to register to vote is further proof of Saunders’ strong sense of enablement (for felons or drug addicts and petty thieves).

If history is an indicator what kinds of persons might be likely to influence leadership, it’s those that have similar employment and common beliefs. What kind of leadership does this man think that felons are most likely to elect? Is Saunders advocating for crooked government and cronyism?

Saunders finishes his diatribe after shedding some tears for some stupid convicted murderers and labeling presidents as political cowards. All this, based on accusations made by mentally retarded sources he does not name. Barry sounds more than just soft on crime; maybe he’s soft in the head too.

When columnists writings tend to dismiss victims, advocate for those that have harmed them and suggest that we lower standards for voting (extend it to thugs that have not paid their debts to society, or suggest sentence reductions and record expunctions) to make their points, we have to wonder what influences such thinking. I am amazed.

In short, issues and items that Saunders promotes are things reasonable persons should avoid.

cc: NC Joint Legislative Corrections, Crime Control and Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee

"Open Season"

It seems like only a few months ago everything had just been stowed away. “Open Season” is just around the corner again. This year seems to have passed us quicker than any other.

My backpack has been checked and “re-loaded” with the usual paraphernalia associated with spending time in tree stands, calling or hauling game out of the woods or just trying to be comfortable (dry and warm). Last weekend the white oaks started “dropping” and while I was out scouting the game lands I could hear an occasional ping or pop when the acorns hit something hard. Thankfully none have hit me square on the head (so far).

The leaves are beginning to change too. Neighbors will begin to “chase” them, or rake or blow the leaves into piles and off of their lawns. During the past few weeks we’ve had some rain so the ground seems fairly soft. Those who were smart enough to plant new lawns in early September this year will have much to show for their efforts. Last year was drier and more of a challenge because we’d started hunting in a new area and weren’t acquainted with all the landmarks, the places to go and things to avoid. Maybe we’ll be able to track the local fauna more reliably. This year we hope to build on what we learned from last year except that there’ll be fewer of us.

Summer activities included a lot of “home maintenance 101”, a little bit of travel and attending some family events. Occasionally Dad and I have discussed bits and pieces of the plan for the fall and early winter. I didn’t get to practice with my bow this year because of a nagging elbow problem. We were reminded that it was time to enjoy what exists today and to prepare for tomorrow. Our sense of urgency renewed when we learned of the eminent development of nearby properties.

My regular gun jammed in the off season so I will be tromping the woods during the late fall with a different one. The muzzle loader that I’ve used for the past few years has been recently sighted in and cleaned. There’s a certain comfort about having these items marked off my mental checklist before opening day.

It’s easy to tease yourself into thinking that this year things will go smoother or that we’ll all be better prepared for what’s to come. For some of us the “destination” is what it’s all about, opening day or a clean, quick harvest or a trophy. I guess that’s part of it. Right now I am thinking about that seasonal journey towards hunting season… the first part seems to have already started again.

There’s an old Chaucer proverb that concludes “all good things come to an end” or some variant of that conclusion. Why can’t good things just change and be handed down?

Let the public decide

I recently posted some letters to editors of more than one local newspaper. The responses I received differed slightly but I was left wondering what sort of business ethics apply to media outlets when they decide to cover certain stories. It’s important to remember that not so long ago we lived in a world without blogs or an Internet where so many things are so easily verified (or worse). I've come to the conclusion that we need to put today's tools to better use.

My first letter to an editor was “softened”. The source of the confusion was the header of the webpage that readers click to make their submissions. Instead of 250 words as the page indicated, the paper had recently decided to change its policy to 200 words or less when it comes to soliciting their reader’s thoughts. Three weeks have passed since my complaint to the Opinion Editor about this problem and the website hasn’t changed a bit. Readers are still left to wonder if they are allowed to submit as many as 250 or 200 words if they have something to say.

I am brutally aware that I am no William Shakespeare and expected some minor edits but what I didn’t expect was for editors to remove real content. I was especially disappointed because I had already gone to some great lengths to summarize the facts of my submission.

I objected because the information that was pruned from my letter was the heart of my submission. My post had been gutted. It shouldn’t surprise you that my letter exposed the media’s failure to report certain facts about a recent event or person. Up to a point I suppose they could have used space and time (the number of words and a deadline) to explain the absence of certain facts. They might have been unaware that such information even existed or was so easy to verify. Then again, I make a point of referencing my sources which are very public and supposedly impartial.

Later the same month I made another submission to yet another local paper. Granted this second paper was known for its personal slant on many issues but I thought that it might be worth some time and effort just to see if they might print an opposing view or one that challenged their coverage. Much to my surprise, they did.

The second letter prompted a phone call from one of their reporting staff. I was almost immediately asked if my letter had in some way been provoked by a personal experience. Of course I answered honestly (and “yes”), and I expect that this probably disqualified me in the mind of the reporter.

Later on in the conversation I had with the reporter from the second newspaper I was amazed by his relative frankness. The “reporter” basically said to me that the audience that reads what his employer creates is more interested in information that supports certain points of view (not mine) and that he and I would always disagree on the issue in question. So he’d more or less confirmed all my suspicions about the kind of coverage he intended to provide.

Since then I’ve been left to wonder about the media even more than I have in the past. Why does the public treat major media outlets with suspicions which they didn’t have in the past? After all, aren’t the days of “it isn’t real until you read it in the morning paper” gone? We’re not just talking “Blather-gate” where a blog exposed Dan Rather’s agenda when it came to a president’s service in the National Guard. More likely we’re talking issues that are not usually front page news.

I guess my point here is that when reporters and editors decide what facts are relevant and which ones don’t deserve space or time in their columns, aren’t they in a position where they often “withhold” facts that the public might need to know? Shouldn’t their work (now that we have an Internet that makes sharing of information so much easier and more efficient) include footnotes, website links and other references to (objective?) sources wherever possible?

When it comes to issues and broad as Global Warming, Middle East or local politics, court cases or celebrity gossip are we doomed to reading and hearing what the media has decided for us? Has the media forgotten its mission to report the facts (as many as are verifiable) and to let the public decide for itself what’s important, right or wrong?

When will the media feel more of an obligation to qualify their sources? Why should the public be satisfied with the media’s interpretations (or headlines and sound bytes) of what the news really is? If some of us want to take a closer look at things, and the media is interested in earning some public trust, aren't we owed some "easy access" to source information (links, email addresses, contact information)?

Walks in the woods...

This year’s turkey hunting was different than past years. I felt a little bit better prepared. At least I thought I knew where I was going and we knew that there was game in the area. A handheld GPS with some half dead batteries was in my knapsack just in case we needed to airlift someone out on a clear day (fat chance). We might be able to make a cell phone call out after getting decent line of sight on a cell tower. The property is gorgeous and you can see Table Rock from many vantage points on the trails and from the field.

The preparations included all the usual antics. I had half my stuff over at my fathers place and the other half in my truck. The loading didn’t start until a complete inventory was taken and certain items were promptly placed on the “nice to have but won’t have it” list. It wasn’t like we were going to be gone for weeks or far from a place where we could buy another (of whatever it might be that's missing).

I hadn’t practiced my turkey calling but wasn’t worried. The goal of this expedition was to get as far away from work as possible. I’d left word with the poor guy that backs me up that I’d be “on the moon” meaning that the cell phone wouldn’t be on and I wouldn’t be calling in before I got back. Hell, it’s not like they were going to pay either of us extra for the long distance corporate drama and there's not much I could do to help anyway. Some things would just have to wait... I guess that defines what is really "just far enough away".

The tendency for hunters to go through their mental checklists after it’s too late is something we’ve gotten better at over the years. On the way out the door we remembered that the alarm clock was still in the house. I couldn’t think of a better way to begin a short vacation if I tried.

On the way into camp we visited the owner’s of the camps house (Leonard) and said “hello”. We learned then that we’d have the place pretty much to ourselves for the first few days. This was almost too much to believe. Just maybe we’d come home with a gobbler? We settled in that night to a very quiet camp and it was cold enough to almost want to start a fire but not so bad it was actually “needed”. Great sleeping weather!

I made my way outside for the first morning hunt about 10 minutes too late. Isn’t that the way it always is? We just had to have breakfast and I filled my travel mug with coffee before heading out the camp door with my shotgun. These are the kinds of mistakes that you’re not supposed to make on opening day… you supposedly learned this lesson from prior years. We'd file this under "lessons re-learned or re-re-learned" in our logbooks. You can't make up for lost time in the woods if you don't leave camp on time.

No sooner than I was a hundred and fifty yards from camp than I heard gobbling. At least one gobbler was off his roost and looking for hens before I’d had a chance to set up. I’d made plans to walk up this one path and settle down where I could look down on some ground that overlooked a gas line. Before I could reach the top of the hill, I could see the outline of some birds. I “waited them out” to see where they might go and they had headed for the other side of the hill. Lord knows if they actually heard or saw me. On second thought, I bet they did. They had the sun behind them so I couldn’t see what really happened. I needed to be some place where I wouldn’t be the one with the sun in his eyes.

Eventually I finished kicking myself and settled down in old turkey blind. Maybe we could get down to business... if I could just get comfortable. It wasn't an issue about clothes or the other gear... it's more of a mental thing some mornings. You coach yourself into remembering where you are and to not to get all hung up on what you've done to get there. You eventually focus on what you have to do... or the "here and now". It's a life strategy that rush hour traffic can teach you if you're smart enough to learn it. I wasn't driving my desk this morning and we were all after a different kind of turkey today. This one had real feathers and spurs. Once things were more or less in order I could rustle up a slate call and let out a few purrs to get warmed up.

I heard sounds from all over. Gobblers were off the property and downhill on the gas line. It was a “National Geographic Moment” when two pileated woodpeckers were playing peek-a-boo around this old rotten oak tree. It would have also beed a "Kodak moment" too except that the weather predictions said "rain" and I didn't want to risk getting my camera wet. They traded sides of the tree while chasing one another and fed from the ground. It was hard not to be jealous of them. They had a wonderful backyard to play in all year long and I'd have to leave in a few days.

Before long I saw movement uphill and out of range. There was plenty of light so I could pretty much see that they were hens. No reason to get bent out of shape yet… not with the world’s best turkey decoys (live hens) strutting all around you. It lasted for about half an hour or so. I don’t know if they got tired of the scenery or if they figured me out.

Around lunchtime I knew Dad would be looking for me. Because I’d not heard any shots from where he said that he’d been hunting, I figured neither one of us had anything to show for our morning in the woods. That was okay as far as I was concerned because this was never a competition.

It’s always interesting when you gather up your gear for the trek back to camp. It’s a good thing I double checked my pockets because I almost left a striker for one of my turkey calls behind. I had a spare and having two of anything handy is usually nice but having “one you want” isn’t always an option when you’ve lost it or even just left it behind.

Dad was ready and waiting (for lunch) when I got back. I learned a few minutes later that the brand new hearing aids he’d packed were in camp (in his suitcase) all morning while he was across the creek. We shook our heads about our transgressions from proper hunting technique and talked about what the hunting would be like on Monday.

I spent Monday morning in the same little blind as before without the benefit of all the wild bird activity. This forced me to think of other places for the afternoon patrol. As I started down the road in front of the camp, one of the other hunters reminded me to “walk slow and listen for clucking” when he heard me say where I was going. This was "my last appointment with the woods" today and I wasn’t going to miss it, so it probably looked like I was in a hurry.

Later on this same guy (Danny, who is Leonards oldest son) would follow my footsteps up the same path. He (accidentally?) found his way onto a neighbor’s property and ambushed a gobbler that wasn’t even on my radar if you know what I mean. More seriously, if I don’t have personal permission to hunt in a strange place, I prefer to pretend that it’s not even there. Anyway, I ended up seeing some more hens on the way uphill on this path but kept my distance and hoped that they hadn’t seen me. Little did any of us know at the time, but Danny ended up chasing at least one more hen in the same direction on that same road. At least that's my guess about what happened anyway...

After spending the better part of the afternoon purring and stalking the local wildlife, I decided to head back to camp so Dad and I could have a "proper dinner" in town. This meant that the camp shower would see some use and where we’re at, this is a task best performed in daylight. On the way down the hill in the middle of the road I can’t believe my eyes A perfectly clean turkey egg was waiting for me. I kept it in a pocket in my new turkey hunting vest until I got into camp.

The sun was starting to get low and Dad was waiting for me on the porch. He was pretty much "ready to go" and have dinner in town. He asked if I’d seen “anything”. I told him that I “got one”. Obviously there were no birds in my game pouch and not having anything to show for it was just asking for more questions or dumb looks so I offered up that “I’d got mine with my bare hands”. When he offered that he’d hadn't heard any shots, that’s when I showed off my little “gem” or the egg. We both had a laugh. At about that time a shot was heard in the distance, on the other side of the property line. About a half hour later we pulled the same drill on Danny when he came out of the woods with a gobbler draped over one shoulder and a grin that went from one ear to the other.

Our day was complete. We’d all had a good time.

Thoughts of a victim advocate being interviewed by the Media

You get a phone call from a friend of a friend of a friend. Enough time has gone by that most of those you know don’t remember what happened or expect that you’ve “gotten over it” or put things behind you. But what stays in the minds of “most persons” isn’t necessarily what stays with you.

The gist of the friendly call is that some legislators (or those that have their ear) got the wild idea that watering down prison sentences and making it easier for offenders to become eligible for parole might save the public a little bit of money. Interested media persons (legislators and the public) need to hear a victims side of that argument.

I said “yes” and “thank you” and pretty much knew what to expect. When you comment publicly, there’s always a price. This “price” has nothing to do with how right or wrong what you say might be or what others really think of what you say. Rarely can others remember your exact words (or what you really looked like) anyway. The price includes one’s anonymity or privacy. Tomorrow I expect to hear some of my coworkers ask me about awful events that occurred years ago or maintain a more healthy distance (until they forget again). A life that was once “normal” was struck in a horrific way, and then allowed to reach some semblance of stasis for a time only to be rocked again. Sometimes the interviews seem like a new form of Chinese water torture. A gentler form of punishment but the memories linger. It’s a constant and cumulative process; the same one that created the grand canyon too. Measure it in tears or one crying family at a time.

There are no “professional victims” out there. This little “club” is constantly growing. Statistics might lull some folks into believing that we don’t need to be as vigilant as we could be. Few persons really believe that bad things will happen to them (or want to). The initiation sure “sucks”. Each meeting, each interview requires some fresh blood. You leave behind some emotional or “meat” each time you re-experience the past.

I don’t watch the evening news with the same perspective as I did before. Newspaper banners and television sound bytes have a distinctly familiar and more personal ring now. Too much so… and having ones name (and picture?) in the papers and being associated with events that occurred during some of the worst days of our lives exacts heavy emotional mileage over time. Few good things come easily.

Each comment or point during an interview begs for equal representation from the other side. Some persons call this “objective coverage”. I won’t say his name to the reporters. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is “fair”. The story eventually begins to revolve around the perpetrator; his name comes up more often (by his defenders) at certain times while victims are often instructed to remain silent until the courts have spoken. Arguments made on behalf of the accused usually trigger the most uncertainty or doubt (or ratings). If only this public posturing were over when the gavel was laid to rest. Appeals and anniversaries go by. You fool yourself into thinking that if you don’t initiate talk on this subject it might all “go away”. Attention is what the perpetrator wants or all he has left to look forward to. Why “feed him”?

If I were a legislator, a lawyer or a used car salesman (some might argue that all these persons are really the same kind of “animal”) a little bit of free publicity might be a good thing. This is not usually the case when you happen to be a relative of a victim of violent crime or someone that has suffered even more directly. Victims of violent crime don’t court the media very often. Too many times what’s mistaken for (or presented as) anger is a real fear that the offender might come back to repeat his crimes (not a desire for revenge). Experience can be an ugly (and mean) teacher.

No one can say for sure that the offender will never harm another person or escape. Years of uncertainty pass. Lawmakers think of full prisons as the problem instead of investing in ways to discourage those that are prone to committing crimes that require incarceration from harming more innocent victims.

You do what you can to advocate for those that are in similar circumstances. You warn those that might find themselves in harms way so that they won’t become another statistic. These problems affect more that a few other people. Hopefully, you can say a few things that they don’t have the time, the patience or words for. Not everyone will listen and there’s no joy in saying “I told you so”. The phone keeps ringing, more violence acts are committed on innocent people and tonight another news segment is aired. Hopefully the world is a tiny bit safer than yesterday or those that come to be harmed are better prepared to deal with it.

'I didn't do it!'

re: I didn't do it!

If the “basic premise to a fair criminal justice system is that it should do as good a job of protecting the innocent as punishing the guilty” is true in North Carolina, why would more proven murderers be released from prisons than there are on death row? Why would the citizens of North Carolina tolerate even the existence of the many inmates who have already demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves and other persons (and will remain a constant danger for as long as they are allowed to live)? A closer look at the judicial system might reveal that criminals get more access to due process (and/or fairness) than their victims ever do. The scales of justice often seem tilted in favor of those accused (or convicted).

Just because some offenders occasionally state “I didn’t do it” and are exonerated or released that doesn’t mean that they are actually innocent either. Offenders might use “father time” as a “weapon to spring themselves” (after all much evidence is perishable). Witnesses die, move away and memories fade too. Establishing an “Innocence Commission” that has no time limits on reviewing offender’s claims invites further erosion of the confidence we should have in the decisions (and sentencing recommendations) made in our courts.

Clearly we will never be able to convict all criminals for all of their crimes; but to conclude that impartial review does not already exist in the system for those who are convicted and where evidence suggests that justice hasn’t been served would be wrong too. Creating a “super court” of three judges that can reverse the unanimous decisions of 12 peer jurists undermines the idea of serving on a jury panel at trial. If the judicial system is forced to take on yet another form of post trial review by employing a new kind of commission (or appellate court?), its powers should be limited to recommending a new trial (or reversal). Juries should have their say in declaring guilt or recommending sentences for the guilty (wherever possible) and those powers should not be thwarted. The powers of an "Innocence Commission" be should limited (finite) and not dilute or trumpt the authority of Superior Courts (or higher) or the Governor.

When professionals involved in the judicial process (prosecutors, public defenders, judges and/or police) err in their work, they certainly risk their reputations or even their livelihoods (jobs). If some persons have found fault with the way that the North Carolina Bar Association demonstrates its authority and resolve to keep the public’s confidence in our courts, perhaps they should make their views known in a constructive manner to the appropriate persons (ncba@ncbar.org) instead directly to the the court of public opinion (i.e., media).

Instead of attacking the judicial system or faulting the courts when occasional cases result in reversal, acquittal, clemency, pardon or retrial, (with the “I didn’t do its!” ) persons truly interested in supporting justice or a fair system might add crime prevention to their list of priorities to support (instead of so-called Innocence Commissions). After all, prevention is where we all stand to do the most persons the most good. If our courts (and prisons) were less burdened, the public would certainly be better served.


1. 180 inmates are on death row.
2. http://crmis42.doc.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/crmis42haht/SimpleAbstractQuery/SimpleAbstractQuery.htx;start=HS_AbstractSubmit (page 13).
5. NC Bar Association, 8000 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513, (919) 677-0561,1-800-662-7407 ncba@ncbar.org.

Accountability?

Once upon a time (or when I was child), my father allowed me to hold a .22 rifle in my hands and shoot at tin cans on a canal bank. That was some 35 or more years ago so I expect that things have changed. It was also a very "controlled situation".

Parents today have more responsibilities (401k’s, child seats, Internet firewalls and Net Nanny’s) to attend to. Children certainly have more distractions (Nintendo’s, Home PC’s and IPods) too. We also use more crutches or excuses for not being accountable for our actions than there are letters in the alphabet (i.e., ADD, ADDHD, BMP, OCD etc).

Somewhere during these years that passed, the distinction between “gun” and “toy” was lost for a lot of us. Computers have turned fantasies into very realistic games and ordinary tools have become weapons of choice. We use cars run down enemies in these games (Grand Theft Auto?) now, we do more than just race around in virtual worlds. When things go wrong or not exactly as planned, we just hit a few keys and the entire world is “reset”. You start again at the beginning or at some predetermined starting point, so that you might improve the experience. No apologies are required; after all, it isn’t real, it's just a game. Right?

Walking into a public place (malls, theatres, and convenience stores) today involves some exposure to video arcades that provide customers (children and so-called adults) with games that reduce firearms (and automobiles) to “toys”. Is this progress, a meaningful expression or venting of emotions or is it just another way to stoke our society’s problems? It's not like there are any real adults to provide the players of these games with any constructive context to what is being played (or to keep the obviously too young to understand away).

I was introduced to firearms in a completely different context. Guns were never used on anything you didn’t want to eat or use as a target. Guns were most certainly not toys. I never had a plastic or toy gun. My brother and I were issued our first shotguns when we were 12 years old. Our natural curiousities for firearms was satisfied at an early age. It was understood that we didn’t have to be careless but once and we’d lose our hunting licenses for life. If we shot it, we had to eat it (warts and all). Life and the rules of it were simple. One should be held accountable for their actions. We understood that we would be held responsible for whatever happened downrange of our targets too.

We were brought up in an environment (a home) where guns were not things to be played with. Guns were used for hunting or for self protection. Cars were something that got you from point “a” to point “b”, (some were just faster than others) and if you were lucky they were pretty enough to get you some extra attention. The results of improper handling of firearms (or the cars) were more “real” then, not to mention permanent and painful. Death was not something that was dismissed or "made right" with an apology. We fully expected to get a bill (and to pay) for every mistake we made. If we erred it was on the side of caution. “I’m sorry” just didn’t “cut it”.

Today we have generations of individuals who’ve never owned a real gun that associate firearms with toys. They don’t eat (or are forced to) what they shoot at either. Persons who have no understanding of firearms are allowed drive cars and kill persons just as dead as if they’d been shot too. The excuses are all pretty much the same and just as lame when a fatality occurs. “Sorry”, “didn’t mean it”, “it was his fault too”, “I was drunk” or “he wasn't raised to know any better” when it comes to explaining away the actions of the perpetrators. They come up all too often. Meanwhile prison populations grow… and motive seems fueled by equal parts opportunity and ability to avoid capture/accountability.

I understand that life is not always fair, and that not all of us born into wealth, endowed with a sense of situational awareness, normal depth perception or the kind of character that demands that we do what is right as opposed to avoid wrong. We can’t blame the demise of our society on the tools we use (or misuse). Our misdeeds are not the fault of the guns, the cars, the computers or the video games that we keep or play with. These "things" are only tools. The problems of our society are not the prisons, our parents or the judicial system. The values we encourage in our populace or in ourselves are what dictate where we end up in the “food chain” (manager/legislator, worker/constituent, retiree/consultant, or prisoner/ward). When persons rely on lame excuses and whining to explain their actions and avoid personal accountability should we allow them to propagate or rule?

Larry the Cable Guy

Friday night was a night I won’t forget. We went to see The Eagles at RBC Center in Raleigh, North Carolina. I’d never seen the entire band on one stage before; in fact I’d only seen Don Henley once before a few years back at Walnut Creek.

This was a "farewell tour" for The Eagles and in a way it signaled to me the end of an age where we could consider ourselves to be young. Members of the band are all in their mid to late fifties. The audience was quite diverse in terms of age, albeit more weighted more towards “aged”, as opposed to the youthful. Most of us were more "relaxed" a trait associated with experience versus "impatient", which is usually attributed to youth.

We stopped off along the way to the concert at a Cuban restaurant named “Carmen’s” to have a nice relaxing dinner. We were thinking that traffic would not be so heavy afterwards. Unfortunately we’d not considered the impact of a late afternoon rainstorm and were late to the stadium (about 8pm) and entered the stadium shortly after the band had begun playing. Up until this point, I believe I’d always, I emphasize “always” been early to see whatever group it was we’d purchased tickets to see. Our full stomachs and adult beverages that we took with our meal would come in handy.

The crowd was relatively subdued but focused on the music. The usual cheers, jeers and ignition of butane lighters were not heard or seen like when more rowdy bands play. I was reminded of the occasion where we saw an Allman Brother’s concert in Raleigh a few years back. To be blunt, the crowd following the Allman’s made me wonder if a local corrections facility had loosed its inmates on the event. I’d never seen such combinations of tattoos, hair (long, short, colored, braided) or clothes. The Eagles’ following was a bit older, a bit more diverse; some watchers were more refined while others were to be gracious “more casual” in their appearance. All that (what other folks happen to look or sound like) is not so important though. I am not in the habit of judging books or persons by their covers either but came to the eventual conclusion that some of these folks don’t get out much (and shouldn’t).

It will take some time to get around to how I came to that conclusion (again?). Previously I’ve criticized tall and “large” persons who happened to get front row seats to see Hootie and the Blowfish in a concert we attended last October. One of the differences between this experience (with The Eagles) and that one is the fact that the “annoyance” came from behind, was more vocal, and a less visual one.

It helps to set the scene by describing the mood. We were late. The band had already started playing and the folks who happened to be sitting behind us were “there” long before us. Maybe they’d been there too long? What I mean by that is it was easy to observe that these individuals (a man and his wife) were “ahead of us” in terms of celebrating the event. To be more to the point, they were drunk.

Being drunk is nothing to be ashamed of in the proper circumstances. And these persons obviously weren’t going anywhere; they certainly meant no harm to anyone. It’s probably a good thing that cameras and recording devices are banned from these events to protect the band from persons who’d record the show and might profit from it. I wonder if The Eagles would have objected if I’d merely recorded a few persons in the crowd?

As we sat down it became apparent that The Eagles weren’t the only ones who were singing. Not that this was completely unexpected; I mean after all, many members of the audience have been singing Eagles songs since their first few albums in the early 1970’s. What I mean to describe here are the “background vocals” from the “gentleman” behind us was providing in a drunken tone. I am not a trained musician so I can’t accurately explain the technical faults of the slurred wailing going on behind us but was helpless to do anything but smile and occasionally provide the man behind us with the “stink-eye”.

The “singing” never really abated. It got worse. The best description I can come up with for this man is that he resembled a comedian who makes fun of rednecks or white trash nationally. So from this point on I will refer to him as “Larry” in honor or “Larry the Cable Guy” from The Blue Collar Comedy tour. Except that the real Larry the Cable Guy is a comedy act and “Our Larry” was a little more close in terms of proximity and less of a joke.

It got worse. Larry found it appropriate to make sure that we knew the name of each song as it struck him. We heard Larry announce songs like “Hotel California” and some of the members of the band like “Glen Frey”. During one of my “stink-eye exchanges” with Larry, he decided that it was time to become more “social”. In fact Larry decided that he knew or recognized me and asked me a number of questions. I didn’t want to be rude and was well aware of the fact that regardless of physical outcomes or the quality of verbal exchanges that one never actually wins an argument with a drunk so I kept things “polite”. Larry offered that he’d actually seen me before and in fact knew which county I frequented. It slowly became more and more apparent that being rude would become more like defecating in ones own mess kit. So I indulged Larry when he mentioned that there was close to about twenty thousand other persons in the stadium and that between tickets and concessions that each patron was dropping on average about one hundred dollars. The Eagles and TicketMaster must be rich! He seemed awed. Slowly the “beer buzz” settled Larry down and he was content to sing a bit more quietly and leave us all alone.

Larry wasn’t alone though. Larry’s wife was the person who initially caught our attention because Larry’s background vocals at least mimicked (or were intended to) the sounds the band. Larry’s significant other (let’s call her “Mary”) was using her cell phone while the band was playing. Mary certainly had more to say than those around her wanted to hear, even Larry. I guess that’s why Larry was intent on staying drunk and singing. Mary on the other hand was not the least bit concerned about Larry or anyone else around her that might be annoyed by her loud bellowing into the cellular phone. It was all I could do not to tell the woman to “turn the thing off” or put it where the sun had never shone. Eventually, Mary’s phone calls ended; she’d let all her friends or relatives know that she’d finally made it to see The Eagles and that she was “just thinking about them”. All these “important messages” seemed to me like they could have waited until after the concert was over.

It’s been five or six months since we’ve been to a concert. We don’t “get out much” either but it’s apparent that some folks get out a lot less than we do. I suppose we are more tolerant of the eccentricities of others or more so than most but it seems like we’ve had a bad streak of luck recently. As I get older, I appreciate social graces more and more.

57 Channels

http://www.brucespringsteen.net/songs/57Channels.html

I guess that impartiality is coached in journalism school and that students are often taught to remain as objective as possible. One thing is for sure; if you want to raise the dander of a reporter, challenge their objectivity. Everyone is human, perceptions will always vary and as passive as this might sound there will always be questions about how fair articles are written. Words or text don’t always express all of the facts or all of the emotion. I guess we shouldn’t shoot the messenger for what he says is the news, but there’s no reason why we should always buy what they are selling if it isn’t truthful, complete or if its purpose is not just to inform but to get us coming back for more. Fear, uncertainty and doom are infectious.

There’s a constant challenge to writing or recording events that will be broadcast to the masses. When attention spans (or a lacking one) require that segments or articles be edited, once what could have been replayed or recited verbatim evolves into something less than scientific or more like a work of art. Not knowing the truth and reporting/repeating allegations has become the new variation of lying (when truths are easily verified, i.e. "Rathergate")

Many factors affect the “art” that some media types call “reporting” today. The competition for ratings and revenue drives rival agencies and channels for something more or different or spectacular. The escalation process is endless and the variations are infinite. The stories are different but over time they all blend together unless the media does something to make them stand out. Different people and different subjects are reported. Each article gets its own title, date and byline. Many titles are purposely incomplete or sensational so as to encourage our curiosity (attention). These titles become teasers and their correctness is secondary to their purpose, which is to gain interest in what’s been published.

Somewhere in this strange mix of events, the real story takes a distant second place. Truth if it is ninety nine percent of the equation gets only half of the coverage. Since when did “fair” mean that each story should be split into two equal halves (pro and con) and the judgments and reasoning behind conclusions are merely “reported” but not challenged. Truth becomes diluted by hype and obfuscated with lies. Truths that give confidence or reduce anxiety get less exposure so that some stories might live longer.

One has to wonder what the agenda of the news services has become now that we have fewer outlets and the stakes in the competition are just that much higher. The price of not triggering doubts can cost newspersons their jobs. News is not news anymore. It has become more “crafted opinions packaged in partial facts or recent happenings”, but it’s not always real or comprehensive information on a singe subject or event. It’s what two sides with an agenda with equal time and space have to say in a 30 second sound byte. It’s about how a woman or a gang member mutilated a male victim’s genitalia, a beheading, a suicide bombing or just another murder on the wrong side of town by one of the usual suspects. The same old lies about global warming or pollution get repeated (over and over and over again).

What have we (the public) become when pedophiles and murderers are the main news? 57 channels and nuthin’s on… just because that’s what the media’s selling doesn’t mean we should be buyin’… put the needle on the record. Time for something "new".

North Carolina needs a "Dogwood Campaign"

Previously I wrote about “Buying American”. Now it’s become more personal or local. Recent news articles reference the rumor (which is most probably true) that IBM Corporation is planning to sell off its Personal Computer Division. This is being done in hopes of relieving the company of a portion of the business where profits are slim and growth seems limited. “Big Blue” it seems, has decided to yield a business it created to a foreign company. Slowly but surely IBM has been weaning itself from hardware related businesses and focusing more on consulting services, support and software.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-12-03-ibm-pc-sale-report_x.htm

Also worthy of note is the recent special session of the North Carolina General Assembly where tax incentives were passed to induce Dell Corporation to move manufacturing facilities into parts of North Carolina. For Dell to be eligible to receive the tax credit, they have to create at least 1,200 jobs over 5 years.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/html03E3/bills/AllVersions/Senate/S2vc.html

Much has been said about the trade deficit, unemployment and outsourcing. More than 13,000 IBM employees are affected in the Research Triangle Park area by the IBM sale of the PC Division. If a large portion of these jobs are moved to another nation like China (or another state), it would seem that the North Carolina General Assembly might be behind the curve on silencing that “loud sucking sound”. The additional jobs and tax revenues they hoped to stimulate by luring one company (and not others) into the State (or taking better care of the ones that are already here) will end up being "too little, too late" for many residents.

I am no rocket scientist but 1200 new jobs (at Dell), which are most likely to be lower income manufacturing work (and more vulnerable to being outsourced long term) versus a still unknown (but larger) number of outbound jobs (IBM, skilled professionals) means that North Carolina is bleeding jobs. This will result in lower overall tax revenues and an increased burden on public services, while displaced North Carolinians seek new employment.

This news doesn’t mean that our legislators “sunk” the IBM PC business with one bill, or that Dell was special. But that point deserves some more or "special" consideration. Really now, is Dell all that “special”? Is the corporate tax structure here conducive to business or to employers (large and small)? If the General Assembly found it necessary to offer incentives to Dell (for fewer and less skilled jobs), isn’t this an admission that the tax structure in our state deserves some reform (or new standards?) that would benefit other employers (and stimulate growth) so that the job exodus might be slowed? It is reasonable to expect that if North Carolina ends up un-employing or under-employing more skilled workers in the long term or flushing well established companies out of state, that our quality of life will NOT be improving.

None of this is really new news; the rumors about an impending sale have been circulated or promoted by analysts, for some time now. IBM may actually be following through on it this time. Pillowtex was another victim of economics that was broken up and shipped to China, Pakistan and India. And before Pillowtex there were others…

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/6476319.htm

The warning signs are not new. North Carolinians need to be encouraged to invest in their state or national economies first. Their hard earned dollars and jobs are exiting the state and the nation at an alarming rate.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/tradnewsrelease.htm

On a more constructive note, why can't North Carolinians (or Americans) be encouraged to purchase locally produced goods? If they don’t know or can’t distinguish between local products and everyone else’s, you really can’t blame them if they don’t always associate a higher value with locally produced items. Shouldn't the North Carolina General Assembly sponsor a bill or program that would encourage local manufacturers to label high dollar items with a seal (a Dogwood Flower?), so that North Carolinians would understand and value these purchases more than similar goods that come from out of state (or other nations)?

What we need in North Carolina is a “Dogwood Campaign”…

Why not "Buy American"?

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/

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

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

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

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/

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

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/